ELR Citation: ELR 20028
No(s). 1:08CV124 (N.D. W. Va. Jan 15, 2010)

A district court granted the motion of two non-settling PRPs to intervene to challenge a proposed consent decree, which was lodged by EPA to resolve CERCLA liability of a settling PRP, on the grounds that the nonsettling PRPs have a significantly protectable interest to support intervention as a right. Under the terms of the consent decree, the non-settling PRPs were barred from seeking contribution from the settling PRP. The court found that the right of contribution held by the nonsettling PRPs, although not certain, was a valuable interest that they would lose if the court entered the proposed consent decree without providing them an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the policy and legislative intent of CERCLA need not be considered since the statute was unambiguous and could be read as a whole without reaching a result at odds with the intention of its drafters.