AGERE SYSTEMS v. ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
| Decision Date | 12 April 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-1814.,09-1814. |
| Parties | AGERE SYSTEMS, INC.; Cytec Industries, Inc.; Ford Motor Company; SPS Technologies, LLC; TI Group Automotive Systems, LLC v. ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION; Ashland, Inc.; Carpenter Technology Corporation; Diaz Chemical Corporation; FCG Inc.; Handy & Harman Tube Co., Inc.; NRM Investment Company Carpenter Technology Corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Robert D. Fox argued, Neil S. Witkes, Kathleen B. Campbell, Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox, LLP, Bala Cynwyd, PA, for Appellant.
Glenn A. Harris argued, Amy M. Trojecki, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersol, LLP, Voorhees, NJ, for Appellees.
Before: SLOVITER, JORDAN and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges.
This appeal arises from nearly three decades of involvement by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") at the Boarhead Farms Superfund Site in Bucks County, Pennsylvania (the "Boarhead Site" or the "Site"). At issue in the underlying case was the disposal of millions of gallons of toxic waste, over a six-year time period, by more than twenty parties, with millions of dollars of cleanup costs at stake. Along with the factual issues born of that history, the case implicates the still developing distinctions between liability under § 107(a) and § 113(f) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("SARA"), codified together at 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675 (collectively "CERCLA").
On June 18, 2002, five plaintiffs—Agere Systems, Inc. ("Agere"), Cytec Industries, Inc. ("Cytec"), Ford Motor Company ("Ford"), SPS Technology, LLC ("SPS"), and TI Automotive Systems LLC ("TI") (collectively "plaintiffs" or "appellees")— filed the present suit against twenty-three defendants for cost recovery and contribution under CERCLA and the Pennsylvania Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act ("HSCA"), 35 PA. STAT. ANN. § 6020.101-104 et seq., to recover costs that the plaintiffs had paid to the EPA pursuant to certain consent decrees or that they had provided as a consequence of the cleanup of hazardous substances at the Boarhead Site. All of the defendants except one, Carpenter Technology Corporation ("Carpenter"), settled their liabilities with the plaintiffs or were otherwise dismissed from the suit after a bench trial. On August 22, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered judgment against Carpenter, finding it liable for 80% of the costs paid by the plaintiffs as of December 31, 2007, plus prejudgment interest. The Court also entered a declaratory judgment that Carpenter is liable for 80% of all cleanup costs that the plaintiffs may incur after January 1, 2008. The District Court denied Carpenter's motion to alter or amend the judgment, and Carpenter filed this appeal. For the following reasons, we will vacate the District Court's judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Beginning in 1972, DeRewal Chemical Corporation ("DCC"), a business that removed, transported, and disposed of chemical waste generated by other companies, began illegally dumping its customers' waste at the Boarhead Site. The dumping continued until 1976, when DCC was enjoined from bringing any chemicals to the Site.1
Between 1984 and 1986, the EPA completed an initial investigation of the contamination at the Boarhead Site. Based on the results of that investigation, the Site was added to the EPA's National Priorities List on March 13, 1989,2 and thus became a Superfund site.3 Later that year, the EPA performed a remedial investigation of the Site to identify whether there were contaminants that posed a risk to human health and the environment. That investigation revealed a variety of hazardous substances in the soil, sediments, and groundwater. In response, the EPA conducted several small-scale cleanup actions4 over the next three years to address immediate risks.
A report of the remedial investigation was published in January 1997, and, by the following July, the EPA issued a feasibility study that defined objectives for a larger-scale response with additional remedial actions.5 In January 1998, the EPA produced its proposed remedial action plan, based on both the remedial investigation and the feasibility study. Then, on November 18, 1998, it issued its Record of Decision ("ROD") respecting the Site.6 The ROD was to be implemented in two stages, which, in the argot of the EPA, are referred to as "operable units." An operable unit is a "discrete action that comprises an incremental step toward comprehensively addressing site problems." 40 C.F.R. § 307.14. The two planned for the Boarhead Site were designated as Operable Unit One ("OU-1") and Operable Unit Two ("OU-2").7
On June 2, 2000, the EPA commenced a suit in the District Court against Cytec, Ford, and SPS, under § 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607,8 by filing a complaint along with a consent decree that those parties had executed (the "OU-1 Consent Decree"). The District Court approved the OU-1 Consent Decree on September 28, 2000. Pursuant to the mandates of the decree, as well as an administrative order,9 Cytec, Ford, and SPS were required to do the work contemplated for OU-1 and to reimburse the EPA for its administrative and oversight costs in connection with the OU-1 cleanup.
Cytec, Ford, and SPS subsequently entered into a separate settlement agreement with Agere, TI, and two other companies, whereby they all agreed to collectively fund and perform OU-1 work and to otherwise comply with the OU-1 Consent Decree. All seven of those companies, which, for convenience, we will call the "OU-1 group," have contributed to trust accounts from which various contractors have been paid and will continue to be paid to perform the work required by the OU-1 Consent Decree.
On December 6, 2001, the EPA commenced another suit in federal court under § 107 against Cytec, Ford, SPS, and TI, by filing a complaint and a second consent decree that those parties had executed (the "OU-2 Consent Decree"). The District Court approved the OU-2 Consent Decree on March 14, 2002. Pursuant to that decree and, again, an administrative order,10 the Court ordered Cytec, Ford, SPS, and TI to do four things: (1) do the work contemplated for OU-2; (2) reimburse the EPA for approximately $7 million in costs related to removal actions at the Boarhead Site that the EPA had incurred prior to July 2000;11 (3) reimburse the EPA for a yet-to-be-determined amount of response costs incurred after July 2000; and (4) reimburse the EPA for its other future response costs in connection with OU-2 work.
Ford, Cytec, SPS, and TI subsequently entered into a separate, private settlement with Agere whereby the parties agreed to collectively...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Giovanni v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy
...2000) ). Furthermore, "we exercise plenary review over a district court's interpretation of CERCLA[.]" Agere Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Envtl. Tech. Corp. , 602 F.3d 204, 216 (3d Cir. 2010). And our review of a "[d]istrict [c]ourt's interpretation and application of legal rules and doctrines" i......
-
New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Real Estate Law Ctr., P.C.
...party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true’ ") (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A), (B) ); Agere Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Envtl. Tech. Corp., 602 F.3d 204, 232 (3d Cir. 2010) (describing that a stipulation may be an admission by a party opponent). If the In re Pratt Decision or t......
-
SOLUTIA INC. v. McWANE INC.
...and not § 107(a), “provide[d] the proper procedural mechanism for [the plaintiff's] claims”); Agere Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Environ. Tech. Corp., 602 F.3d 204, 227-28 (3d Cir.2010) (holding that § 113(f) contribution claims were plaintiffs exclusive remedy based on costs incurred performi......
-
Bernstein v. Bankert
...and not disturbing, district court's implicit decision that plaintiff could not pursue both remedies); Agere Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Envtl. Tech. Corp., 602 F.3d 204, 229 (3d Cir.2010); Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 596 F.3d 112, 128 (2d Cir.2010); ITT Indus., Inc. v. B......
-
Section 107 Cost Recovery Versus §113 Contribution Claims
...at 1233. 59. Morrison Enters., LLC v. Dravo Corp., 638 F.3d 594, 603 (8th Cir. 2011). 60. Agere Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Envtl. Tech. Corp., 602 F.3d 204, 229 (3d Cir. 2010) (holding that plaintifs “who if permitted to bring a §107(a) claim would be shielded from contribution counterclaims un......
-
RESOLVING "RESOLVED": COVENANTS NOT TO SUE AND THE AVAILABILITY OF CERCLA CONTRIBUTION ACTIONS.
...[section] 9606(a); accord Gen. Elec. Co. v. Jackson, 610 F.3d 110, 114 (D.C. Cir. 2010); Agere Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Env't Tech. Corp., 602 F.3d 204, 217 n.25 (3d Cir. 2010). EPA tends to use UAOs more than filing an abatement action in court because they are powerful tools. See Pidot &......