Metso says 3rd Cir. in Agere found consent order is not part of settlement process, thus allowing §107 claim against PRP

摘要

Plaintiff Metso Paper USA Inc. contended on May 3 that the Third Circuit's recent decision, which held that a potentially responsible party that enters into a consent order ,clean up environmental damage may later bring a claim against another PRP under § 107 of CERCLA, does not warrant interlocutory appeal by Bostik Inc. of a decision in favor of Metso. The case is in federal court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.rnBostik has argued that cost recovery provisions (i.e., CERCLA § 107(a) (4)(B) and HSCA § 702(a)(3)) are unavailable to a party, like Metso, that is compelled by an administrative order to incur response costs. Instead, such claims must be brought as a contribution action under § 113(f)(3)(B) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(3)(B), and 705(c)(2) of HSCA, 35 P.S. § 6020.705(c)(2), and each of these contribution sections is subject to its own specific requirements, Bostik contends.