10-2480 U.S. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co.

Listen to this article

Environmental Law
CERCLA; consent decrees

It was not an abuse of discretion to approve a consent decree between the government and de minimis defendants responsible for PCB contamination in the Fox River.

“According to Appleton and NCR, the only bases for the de minimis defendants’ comparative fault are the Governments’ unsupported conclusions. In reality, the record includes information about each of the de minimis defendants’ discharges of PCBs. Whiting Paper, Green Bay Metro Sewerage, Green Bay Packaging, Heart of the Valley, International Paper, Procter & Gamble, and Union Pacific all responded to § 104(e) requests. The de minimis defendants that did not respond to § 104(e) requests provided certified statements about their use of PCBs and about any potential discharges. The record also included deposition transcripts and written discovery responses produced in related litigation. Finally, the record included information drawn from the public comment process.”

“Contrary to Appleton and NCR’s argument, these sources are not devoid of content. In fact, Appleton and NCR used the information from Green Bay Metro Sewerage’s § 104(e) responses to demonstrate that Green Bay Metro Sewerage’s discharges exceeded the Governments’ original estimate. Given the amount of relevant information in the record, we find that the record provides a rational basis on which the district court could conclude the consent decrees were substantively fair.”

Affirmed.

10-2480 U.S. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Griesbach, J., Kanne, J.

Full Text