2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

4-12-2010 

# Age r e S ys I nc v

. Ad v a nced E n v C ons ul

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 09-1814

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" Ag e r e S ys I nc v

. Adv a nc e d E n

v C on s ul " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1417. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1417PR EC ED EN TI AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT

_____________ No. 09- 1814

_____________ A G E R E S Y S T E M S , IN C .; C Y T E C IN D U S T R IE S , IN C .; F O R D M O T O R C O M P A N Y ; SP S T EC HN OL OG I ES , LL C; TI GR OU P A UT OM OT I VE

SYSTEMS, LLC

v. AD VANC ED EN VI RO NM EN TA L T EC HN OL OG Y CO RP ORAT I ON ; AS HL AN D, I NC

. ; CA RP EN TE R T E C H N O L O G Y C O R P O RA T IO N ; D IA Z C H E M IC A L C O R P O RA T IO N ; F C G IN C ; HANDY & HARMAN TUBE CO, I NC. ; NRM I NV ES TM EN T C OM PANY
Car

pe nt e r Te c hnol ogy

Cor por a t i on, Appe l l ant

_______________ On Ap peal from

the Unite d S tate s Dis tr ic t Cou rt f o r th e E astern D istrict o f

P en n sylv an ia ( D. C. No. 02- c v- 3830) D istrict Ju d g e: H o n o rab le L eg ro m e D . D av is

_______________Ar gue d De c e m be r 17, 2009
B ef o re: S L O V IT E R , JO R D A N an dG R E E N B E R G , C ircu it

Judg es . ( Fi l e d: Apr i l 12, 2010)

_______________ Ro be rt D. Fo x [ AR GU ED ] Neil S. Wi tkes K ath leen B . C am

p b ell Mank o, Go l d, Kat c he r

& Fo x, LL P 401 Ci ty Ave nue - #500 Ba l aCy nwy d, PA 19004 Couns e l f or Appe l lant Gl e nn A. Harr i s [A RG UE D] Amy M. Tr oje c ki Ba l l ar d S pahr

An dr e ws & I ng e r s ol , LL P Plaz a 100 0 - Ste. 50 0, Main Stre et Voorhe e s , NJ08043 Co un se l f or Ap pellees

_______________ OPI NI ON OF THE COURT

_______________i T ab le o f C o n ten ts
I

. B a c k g r o u n d

. ................................ 2
A

. E P A A ctio n s a t th e B o a rh ea d S ite

. ......... 3
i

. Th e OU-1 Con se nt Decr ee . ......... 5
ii. Th e OU-2 Con se nt Decr ee . ......... 6
iii. Ca rpente r

. ...................... 8
B

. P resen t S

u it

. .......................... 9
i

. St i pulat i ons . .................... 1 0
ii. Be nc h Tr i al

. .................... 1 1
I I

. St a t e m e nt

of Jur i s di c t i on and St andar d of Re vi e w. 14
I I I

. D i s c u s s i o n
. ................................ 1 5
A

. Stat ut or

yBac k gr ound Law

. ............. 1 5
B

. I s s u es o n A

p p e a l

. ..................... 19
C

. C yt ec , F o rd , S PS , a n d T I’ s § 1 1 3 (f) C la im fo r R eim b u rsem en t o f P a ym en ts M a d e to th e E P A fo r P a st Co sts

. ......... 2 1
i

. Bac k

gr ound

. ................... 2 1ii ii. The Stat ut e of

Li mi tat i ons to R eco ver P a st Co sts

. .............. 2 1
iii. T h e E xcep tio n s to th e T

h ree-Y ea r Stat ut e of Li mi tat i ons Pe r i od

. ..... 2 5
D

. TI and Age r e ’

s § 107( a) Clai ms t o R eco ver Co sts P a id

to O th er P la in tiffs P u rsu a n t to S

ettlem en t A g reem en ts

. ...... 3 2
i. Bac k

gr ound

. ................... 3 2
ii. Sect ion 1 07 (

a) Co st Recover y Cl ai ms . ........................ 3 3
E

. The Di

s tr i c t Cour t ’ s Equi tabl e Al l oc at i on f or t he Plai nt i f f s ’ Cos t s of Pe r f ormi ng W or k Unde r t he OU- 1 and OU- 2Cons e nt Decr ees . ............................ 3 7
i. Bac k

gr ound

. ................... 3 7
ii. S ectio n s 1 0 7 (

a ) a n d 1 1 3 ( f)

. ........ 3 7
iii. T h e D istrict Co u rt’s E q u ita b le A llo ca tio n U

n d er § 1 1 3 ( f)

. ........ 4 2
i v. The J

une 23 St i

pulat i on i

s Not an rd Ad miss ion tha t i

s Adm is si ble Ag ainst Carpenter

. .............. 4 6iii v
. O th er E vid

en ce R eg a rd in g

Wa ste Vo lumes

. ...................... 4 9
F

. Other Con te ntions Rega rding the Dist ri ct Cour t ’ s Equi tabl e Al l oc at i on . ........... 5 1
i

. N R M ’s Wa ste

. .................. 5 1
ii. The Cul

pabi l i t yand Lac k

of Co o p era tio n o

f S ettlin g D efen d a n ts

.. 5 3
iii. S ettlem en t A m o u n ts

. ............. 5 4
G

. T h e P en n sylva n ia H

a za rd o u s S ites C l e a n u p A c t

. ......................... 55
I V

. C o n c l u s i o n
. ............................... 5 51 JO R D A N , Ci r c ui t

J udge

. Thi s a ppe a l ar i s e s fr om

ne ar l y th ree de c a de s of invo lvem ent by the En vironm enta l Prote ct ion A gency (“ EP A”) a t th e B o arh e a dF arm s S up e r f u n dS i t e i n B u c k s C o u n t y, P en n sylv an ia (th e “B o arh eadS ite” o r th e “S i t e ” )

. A t issu e in the unde r l yi ng c a s e wa s the di s pos a l of m i l l i on s o f ga l l ons of to x ic w aste, o v er a six -y ear tim e p erio d , b y mo re th an tw en ty part i e s , wi th m i l l i ons of dol l ar s of c l e anup c os t s a t s t a ke

. Al ong with the fac tual is sues bo rn of that hist ory , the ca se im plic at es the s ti ll developing dist inct ions betwee n li abil it y un der § 10 7(a) and § 11 3(f) of

the Com prehensi ve E n v ir on m enta l Res po nse, Com pe ns a t i on, and Li abi l i ty

Ac t of 1980 a nd the S u pe r fund Am endm ents and R ea

utho ri zati on Act of 1 98 6 (“SAR A”), co d if iedto g eth er at 4 2 U .S .C . § § 9 6 0 1 -9 6 7 5 (co llectiv ely “CER CL A”).
On June 18 , 20 02 , five plai ntiffs – Agere Sy st em s, Inc. ( “ Age r e ” ) , Cy

t e c I ndustrie s , I nc
. ( “ Cy t e c ” ) , For d Mot or Co m pany ( “ Fo r d” ) , SP S T e c hn ol og y , LL C ( “ SP S” ) , a ndTI Aut om ot i ve Sy s t e m s LLC ( “ TI ” ) ( c ol l e c t i ve l y “ pl ain t i ffs ” or “a pp el le es ”) – f

il ed the pre se n t s uit a gainst twenty -three de fe nd ant s fo r

c os t r e c ov e ry andc on tr i bu t i on un de r

CE RC LA and the Penn sylvania

Hazar do us Site s Cle anup Act ( “HSC A”), 35 P A
. S T AT
. A NN
. § 6020. 101- 104 e t s e q. , to rec ov er

cost s that t he p l a i n t i f

f s h a dp a i dt o th e E P A p u r s u an t t o c e rt a i n c o n s e nt de c r e e s or

tha t the y ha d pr ovi de d a s ac ons e que nc e of the c l e anup of ha z ar dous s ubs t anc e s a t the Boarh ead Si t e
. Al l of the de fe nda nt s e xc e pt one , Car pe nt e r Te c hnol ogy

Cor por a t i on (“ Carpente r” ), se tt le d their li abil it ie s with the plai ntiffs or were othe rwi s e di s m i s s e d from th e s ui t a ft e r abe nc h tr i a l

. OnBe t wee n 1 9 7 3 a n d 1 9 7 6 , t h e Buc k s Cou n t y Dep a r t ment of 1 H e a lth fi l ed o ver fi ft een W ast e D i scharge Inspect i on R epo rt s r egar di ng t he B oar head Si t e. O n O ct ober 15, 1976, an i nj unct i on w as i s s ued pr event i ng D C C fr om br ing ing any c h e mi c a l s t o t h e S i t e
. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e Bo a r he a d S i t e , DCC di s pos ed of i t s cus t om er s ’ w as t e at t w o ot her s i t es , know n t o t he par t i es as the O nt ar i o St r eet pr oper t y and t he W i s s i nom i ng I ndus t r i al Par k. T he for m er w as a r ent al pr oper t y t hat D C C t ook p o ss e ss io n o f

o n N o v e m b e r 1 5 , 1 9 7 3 , o n O n tar io S tre e t in

2 Augu s t 2 2 , 2 0 0 8 , th e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c t C o u rt f ort he E astern D i s trict o f

P en n sylv an ia en teredj u d g m en t ag ain st Car pe nt e r , fi n d in g it li abl e for 80% of the c os t s pa i d by the p lain tif f s as o f D ecem b er 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 , p lu s p rej u d g m en t in terest. T h e C o u rt also en tered a d eclarato ry j u d g m en t th at C arp en ter is l i abl e for 80% of a l l c l e anup c os t s tha t the pl a i nt i ffs m ay

i nc ur afte r J anuary

1, 20 08 . The Distri ct

C o u rt d enie d C ar

penter ’s m o tio n to alter o r am en dth e j u d g m en t, an dC arp en ter f iledth is appe a l

. Fo r

the fo l l ow i ng r e a s on s , we wi l l va c a t e the Di s tr i ct C o u rt’s j u d g m en t an d rem an d f o r p ro ceed in g s co n sisten t w ith th is o p in io n
. I . Bac k gr ound
Be gi nni ng i n 1972, D eRe wa l Che m i c a l Cor por a t i on ( “ DCC” ) , abus i ne s s tha t

r e m ove d, tr ans port e d, a nd di s pos e d of ch em ical w aste g en erated b y o th er co m p an ies, b eg an i l leg ally dum p in g its c us t om e r s ’ wa s t e a t the Boarhe a d Si t e
. The dum pi ng c ont i nue d unt i l 1976, whe n DCC wa s e njoi ne d fr om bringing any

chem ic al s t o the Site

. 1P h ilad e lp h ia, P e n n sy lv a n ia. O n Ju n e 1 3 , 1 9 7 5 , th e P h ilad e lp h ia W at er D epar t m ent s eal ed t he l at eral connec t i on bet w een t he O nt ar i o St r eet pr oper t y and t he ci ty sew er s y s t em aft er t he D epar t m ent di s cover ed t hat D C C w as i m pr oper l y di s pos i ng of c h e mi c a l wa s t e i n t o t h e c i t y s e we r s y s t e m f r o m t h e p r o p e r t y
. On M ay 6, 1976, th e o w n e r of D C C lea se d a n o th e r site, th ro u g h its su b sid iar y , loc a ted in th e W iss in o m in g In d u stria l P a rk in P h ilad e lp h ia. D C C e v e n tu a lly c e a se d u se o f th a t site a s a re su lt of conc er ns r ai sed by t he Phi l adel phi a W at er D epar t m ent , t he P h i l a d e l p h i a P o l i c e De p a r t me n t , a n d t h e E P A. T h o s e t wo d isp o sa l sites a re n o t th e f o c u s o f th e p re se n t ap p e a l.

“ T h e N P L [ N a tio n a l P rio rities L ist] is th e li s t o f p rio rity 2
r el e a s e s f

o r l o n g - t e r m r e me d i a l e v a l u a t i o n a n d r e s p o n s e
. ” 40 C .F .R . § 3 0 0 .4 2 5 (b ). Super fund si t es ar e t hos e haz ar dous w as t e s i t es l i s t ed on t he 3 E P A ’s N ati o n al P ri o ri ti es L ist

. S ee U

. S. E NV I R ON MEN TAL P R O T E C T I O N A GENCY , S U P E R F U N D , ht t p: / / w w w
. epa. gov/ s uper fund/ i ndex. ht m ( l as t vi s i t ed M ar ch 5, 2 0 1 0 ). 3 A

. E P A A ctio n s a t th e B o a rh ea d S ite
Betwee n 1 9 84 and 1 98 6, the EPA com plet ed an init ia l invest igat ion o f the contam inat ion at the Bo ar head Site . Bas ed on the r e s ul t s of tha t

i nve s t i ga t i on, the Si t e wa s a dd ed to the EPA’ s Na t i ona l P rio riti e s Li s t on Mar c h 13, 1989, and thus 2 becam e a Su perfun d sit e. Late r that y ear, the EPA perform ed 3 a r em edia l i nv es ti gati on of the Sit e t o identify

wh et h er ther eIn g e n e ra l, w h e n w e u se th e te r m “ a c tio n ” th ro u g h o u t th is 4 opi ni on, w e ar e us i ng i t t o r efe r t o envi r onm ent al cl eanup w or k, a n d n o t as a sy n o n y m f

o r a law su it.
S e e inf ra not e 29 r egar di ng t he def i ni t i ons of r emedi al 5 act i on s and rem ov al act i on s. “A R O D pr ovi des t he j us t i fi cat i on for t he r emedi al act i on 6 (tre a tm e n t) c h o se n a t a S u p e rf u n d site . It also c o n tain s s ite h isto ry , site d e sc rip tio n , site c h a ra c ter istics , co m m u n ity part i ci pati on , enfo rcem ent acti vit i es, past and present act i vit i es, c o n tam in a ted m e d ia, th e c o n tam in a n ts p re se n t, sc o p e a n d ro le of r e s po ns e a c t i on a nd t he r e medy s e l e c t e d f or c l e a nu p. ” U

. S. E NV I RON ME NT A L P R OTE C TI ON A GENCY , S UP ER F UN D I NF OR MAT I ON SYS TEMS , R E CO RD OF D EC I SI ON S YS TEM , 4 we r e c ont a m i nant s tha t

po sed ar i s k t o hum an he a l th and the e nvi r on m e n t

. T h at

i n v e s t i ga t i on r e ve a l e d avar i e ty of ha z ar dous substances in the s oil, se dim ents , and grou nd wate r. In r e s pons e , the EPA c onduc t e d s e ve r a l s m a l l

- s c a l e c l e anup actio n s o v er th e n ex t th ree y ears to ad d ress im m ed iate risk s. 4
A rep o rt o f

th e rem ed ial in v estig atio n w as p ub lish edin J anuary 1997, and, by

the fol l owi ng Jul y , the EPA i s s ue d a f easib ility stu d y th at d ef in ed o b j ectiv es f

o r a larg er-scale r e s p o n s e w i th a d d i t i o n a l r e m e d i a l a c t i o n s
. I n J an u ary 1998, 5 the EPA pr oduc e d i t s pr opos e d r e m e di a l a c t i on pl an, ba s e d on both the r e m e di a l i nve s t i ga t i on and the fe a s abi l i ty s t udy

. The n, on Nove m

be r 18, 1998, i t i s s ue d i t s Re c or d o f D ec i s i on (“ RO D”) r es pect ing the Site

. Th e ROD was t o b e i m plem ente d 6htt p:/ w w w
. e p a
. go v/s up erfund / si t es/ rods/ ( l as t vi s i t ed D ec. 30, 2 0 0 9 ).
O U

- 1 addr es s ed groundw at er ext r act i on, m et al pr eci pi t at i on, 7 ai r s t r i p p i ng, t he i ns t al l at i on of w el l s , r es i dent i al w at er t r eat m ent , phy t or emedi at i on, and t he i ns t al l at i on of i ns t i t ut i onal c o nt r ol s and moni t or i ng for O U

- 1. O U

- 2 addr es s ed s oi l aer at i on and t r eat m ent of vol at il e or gani c compound hot s pot s , t he excavat i on and off

- s i t e di s pos al of bur i ed dr um s , and t he i mp l e me n t a t i o n o f

i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n t r o l s a n d mo n i t o r i n g f o r OU2

. A s m or e ful l y di s cus s ed her ei n, § 107 aut hor i zes t he U ni t ed 8 St at es or a s t at e or “anyot her per s on” t o s eek r ei m bur s ement for
r emoval or r emedi al cos t s i ncur r ed i n r es pondi ng t o r el eas es of haza r dous subst ance s as defi ned byC E R C L A , pr ovi ded t hat t hos e ac t i ons ar e cons i s t ent w i t h t he nat i onal cont i ngencypl an. 5 in two sta ges, wh ic h, in the argot of the EPA , are re ferr ed to as “operabl e units .” An op er ab le u n it is a “ disc re te ac ti on that co m p rises an in crem en tal step to w ardco m p reh en siv ely a ddr e s s i ng s i t e pr ob l e m s
. ” 40 C.F.R. § 307

. 14

. Th e two p lan n edf o r th e B o arh eadS ite w ere d esig n ated as O p erab le U n it On e ( “OU-1”) and Op er able Un it Tw o (“OU-2”). 7
i

. Th e OU-1 Con se nt Decr ee On June 2, 2000, the EPA c omm e nc e d as ui t i n the Di s tr i ct C o u rt a ga i ns t

Cy t e c , For d, and SPS, unde r § 107 of C E R C L A , 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 7 , b y f ilin g a co m

p lain t alo n g w ith 8See 42 U

. S. C

. § 9607( a)

. T he nat i onal cont i ngency pl an has been cal l ed “t he feder al gover nm ent ’ s r oadmap for r es pondi ng t o t he r el eas e of ha zar dous s ubs t ance s
. ” Ni ag ara Moh aw k P w r. C or p. v. C hevr on U

. S

. A

. , I nc. , N o
. 0 8

- 3 8 4 3

- C V , 2 0 1 0 WL 6 2 6 0 6 4 , at *3 (2d C ir

. F eb

. 2 4 , 2 0 1 0 ).
Pl a i nt i ff s Cy t e c , For d a nd SPS a r e a l s o s i gn a t or i e s t o a n EPA 9 A dm i n i s t r a t i v e Or d e r f

o r Con s ent for R emedi al D es i gn exec ut ed in F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 0

. 6 a c on se nt decr ee that

tho se part ie s had execut ed (the “OU-1 Co nsent Decr ee ”)

. Th e Distri ct Co urt approv ed th e O U-1 Cons e nt De c r e e on Se pt e m

be r 28, 2000. Pur s uant

t o the m andates o f th e dec re e, as well as an adm inis tr at ive order , 9 Cy te c, Fo rd, and SP S w er e required to do the wo rk co n tem p late d f o rO U -1 an dto reim

b u rse th e E P A f

o r its adm inis tr at ive and ov er si gh t c osts in conn ec ti on with the OU-1 clean up
. Cy t e c , F o r d, and SPS s ubs e que nt l y e nt e r e d i nt o a se para te se tt le m ent a gree m ent with A gere , TI, and two other c om pani e s , whe r e b y the y

a l l a gr e e d t o c ol l e c t i ve l y fund a nd perform OU -1 wo rk and to o th erwise com ply with the OU-1 Cons e n t D ecree. Al l s e ve n of thos e c om pani e s , whi c h, for conv enie nce, we will ca ll the “OU -1 grou p,” have contri bu te d to tru st acco u n ts f

ro m w h ich v ario u s co n tracto rs h av e b een p aid and wi l l c ont i nue t o be pa i d t o pe r form the work r e qui r e d by

the O U -1 C o n sen t D ecree.Pl ai nt i ffs C y t ec, For d, SPS , and TI a r e al s o s i gnat or i es t o an 10 E P A A dm i ni s t r at i ve O r der for C ons ent for R emedi al D es i gn, e x e c u te d o n O c to b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 1

. T he s i gni fi canc e of J ul y 2000 as a pi vot al poi nt i n t he t i m i ng 11 of EP A ’ s cos t s and ca l cul at i ons i s not cl ear fr om t he r ecor d.
7 ii. Th e OU-2 Con se nt Decr ee O n D ecem

b er 6 , 2 0 0 1 , th e E P A co mm en cedan o th er su it in federal court und er

§ 10 7 agai nst C y

te c, Fo rd, S PS , andTI, b y f ilin g a co mp l a i n tan da seco n dco n sen t d ecree th at th o se part i e s ha d ex ecut e d ( the “ OU- 2 Cons e nt De c r e e ” )

. The Di s tr i c t Court a ppr ove d the OU- 2 C ons e nt De c r e e on Mar c h 14, 2002. Pur s uant

t o tha t de c r e e and, a ga i n, an a dm i ni s tr a t i ve or de r , the Court or de r e d Cy t e c , For d, SPS, and TI t o do four 10 th in g s: (1 ) d o th e w o rk co n tem p lated f o r O U -2 ; (2 ) reim

b u rse th e E P A f

o r ap p ro x im ately

$ 7 m i l l i o n i n co sts relatedto re m ov al ac ti on s at the Bo ar head Site that

the EPA had incurred prior t o July

20 00 ; (3 ) re im

bu rs e the EP A f

or a y et -t o-be- 11 de t e rm i ne d a m ount of r e s pons e c os t s i nc urr e d a ft e r Jul y 2000; an d(4 ) reim

b u rse th e E P A f

o r its o th er f

u tu re resp o n se co sts in co n n ectio n w ith O U -2 w o rk

. F or d, Cy t e c , SPS, and TI s ubs e que nt l y e nt e r e d i nt o a se para te , pri vate se tt le m ent w it h A gere wh er eby

the parti es ag reed t o c o l l ectiv ely

f u n dan dp erf

o rm O U -2 w o rkan dto othe rwi s e c om

pl y wi th the OU- 2 Cons e nt

De c r e e
. A g a i n for c on ve ni e nc e , we wi l l r e fe r t o tho s e fi ve c om pani e s a s “ the OU

2 gr oup. ” In a f

a s hi on s i m i l ar

t o the OU- 1 gr oup, the fi veW h ile n o n e o f th e p a rties h a s ra ise d th e iss u e , w e a re lef t to 12
w o n d e r w h e th e r A g e re h a s s tan d in g to b rin g th e p re se n t su it against C arpent er aft er hav i ng assi gn ed t o ot hers i t s ri g h t to recover t he am ou nts i t paid i nto t he O U -1 and O U -2 group t rust acc ount s
. W het her or not A ger e has st andi ng, how ever , w e r efe r to th e c la im s w h ic h o ri g in a te d w ith it a s b e in g “ A g e re ’s c la im s ,” s i n c e , wh e t h e r h e l d b y Ag e r e o r a s s i g n e e s , t he c l a i ms th e m se lv e s re m a in

. O n r e m a n d , the D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld det er m i ne w h o hol ds t hes e cl ai m s and, s peci fi cal l y , t o w hat ext ent , if an y , A ger e r et ai ns s t andi ng. T hi s opi ni on and acc om pany i ng j udgm ent or der ar e, obvi ous l y , t o be under s t ood a s p e r m i t t i n g r e c o v e r y b y t h e p a r t i e s i n i n t e r e s t o n l y. 8 m em b ers o f th e O U -2 g ro up co n trib u ted to g ro up tru st acco u n ts fr om whi c h the y

pa i d and wi l l c ontinue t o pay var i ous c ontr a c t or s t o pe r form

the work r e qui r e d by

the OU- 2 Cons e nt D ecree. On Marc h 30, 20 07 , in exchange for $4 00 ,000 , A gere (w h ich h adn ev er itself b e e n su edb y th e E P A ), assig n edto C y tec, F o rd , S P S , an d T I its claim s to reco v er th e ap p ro x im ately one m i l l i on dol l ar s i t

ha d pa i d i nt o the OU- 1 an d OU- 2 gr oup tru st acco u n ts. 12

iii. Ca rpente r DC C colle ct ed and d is po se d o f w as te at the Boarhead Si t e fr om m or e than twe nty

c us t om e r s be twe e n 1972 and 1977. Carpente r was on e of tho se cust om er s and is a Delaw ar eT he bas i s for t hat excl us i on has not been e xpl ai ned on 13
a p p e a l.
T h e o rigi nal defend ants i ncluded t he fo l l ow i ng part i es: 14 A dvance d E nvi r onm ent al T echnol ogy C or por at i on; A s hl and Ch e mi c a l Co mp a n y ; Bo a r h e a d Co r p o r a t i o n ; Ca r p e n t e r ; Cr o wn M e tr o , In c .; D ia z C h e m ic a l C o rp o ra tio n ; E tc h e d C ir c u its , In c .; fcg, I nc. ; G l obe D i s pos al C o
. , Inc. ; H andy & H ar m an Tube C om pany , I nc. ; K nol l , I nc. ; M er i t M et al s Pr oduct s C or por at i on; N o v a rtis C o rp o ra tio n ; N R M In v e stm e n t C o m p a n y ; P lym o u th T ube C om pany ; Q ui ckl i ne D es i gn and M anufa ct ur i ng C om p an y ; R ahns Speci al t y M et al s , I nc; R ohm and H aas C o m p a n y ; S im o n W re c k in g C o ., In c .; T e c h a llo y C o ., I n c .; T hom as & B et t s C or por at i on; U ni s y s C or por at i on; and t he U n ite d S ta te s o f

A m e ri c a D e p a rt m e n t o f N a v y
. 9 c or po rati on wi th i t s pr i nc i pa l pl a c e of bus i ne s s i n Re a di ng, P en n sylv an ia.
Ca r p en ter receiv eda n o tice f

ro m th e E P A co n cern i ng t

he Boa r h e a dS i t e , d a t e dS e p t e m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 0 , a s k i n g i t

t o r e s o l ve i t s pot e nt i a l l i abi l i ty

t o the EPA for

pa s t c l e anup c os t s and fu rth e r a s k i n g th a t i t a g r e e t o p e r f o rm w o rk r e q u i r e d by

t he EP A’s 199 8 R O D , ex cl ud ing the wo rk ou tl ined in the OU-1 Cons e nt De c r e e
. The le t t e r

i nc l ude d al i s t

of t e n pr e vi ous 13 r e c i p i e n t s o f s i m i l ar l e t t e r s f r o m th e E P A c o n c e rn i n g t he B o arh eadS ite. C arp en ter d idn o t c o mp l y w ith th e req u ests in th e letter.
B

. P resen t S

u it
On June 18 , 20 02 , the five pla inti ff s i n this s uit – Ag er e, Cy t e c , For d, SPS, and TI – fi l e d the i r or i gi na l c om pl a i nt i n the D istrict C o u rt ag ain st tw en ty -th ree d ef en d an ts, seek in g co st

14 r e c ove ry a n d c o n t r i but i on unde r

CERCLA and unde r

the HSCAA t t he t i m e of t he fi ft h and fi nal am en d ed co m pl ai nt , t he 15 defe ndant s i ncl uded A dvance d E nvi r onm ent al T ec h nol ogy C or por at i on; A s hl and C hemi cal C om pany ; C ar pent er ; D i az C hemi cal C or por at i on; fcg, I nc; H andy & H ar m an Tube C o m p a n y , In c .; a n d N R M In v e s tm e n t C o m p a n y
. B y t he t i m e of t he bench t r i al , al l of t he ot her defe ndant s had 16 ei t her set t l ed or had been grant ed u no pp osed m oti on s t o d i sm i ss o r u n o p p o s e d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n s
. F ro m th is p o in t f

o rw a r d , ref

e re n c e s to “ th e p a rties ” a re to 17 t he named p lai nt i ffs i n t hi s s ui t and C ar pent er , unl es s t he cont ext di ct at es ot her w i s e. T h e e x a c t d a te o n w h ich th e p a rties e n ter e d in to th is 18 sti p u lat ion is n o t en ti rely clea r fro m the reco rd. T h e s ig n a ture page, how ever , s ugges t s t hat t he dat e mi ght have been J une 18, 2 0 0 8 . ( See A p p . a t 1 4 :A 6 3 9 0 .) 10 t o r e c oup c os t s the y

ha d pa i d t o the E P A pur s uant t o one or m o re co n sen t d ecrees o r h adreim b u rsedto o n e an o th er, all re lati ng to the cle anup of hazardou s s ub st ance s at t he Bo ar head S ite. B y Jan u ary 2 1 , 2 0 0 8 , th e p lain tif

f s h adf ileda f if th am ended com

plai nt and sev en defend ants re m ai ned. When 15 the be nc h tr i a l c om

m e nc e d o n Jun e 23 , 20 08 , on l y two defend ants were le ft, Hand y & Harm an Tu be Co m pan y , I nc. (“ H&H”) and Carpente r. A f ter tri al , H&H was grant ed an 16
u n o p p o sedm o tio n to d ism iss, leav in g C arp en ter a s t h e so le rem ain in g d ef

en d an t.
i

. St i pulat i ons The part i e s e nt e r e d i nt o s e ve r a l s t i pul a t i ons be for e and

17 dur i ng tr i a l , t o narr ow the fa c t ua l and l e ga l i s s ue s be for e the Di s trict C o u rt

. Fi r s t , the y s i gne d as t i pul a t i on of ba c kgr ound fa c t s , m any

of whi c h ha ve be e n not e d he r e a l r e a dy

. Se c ond, 1811 on June 19 , 200 8, they

st ipulat ed to the volum e of w as te that DC C c olle ct ed from fiftee n o ther com panies , fou rt ee n o f w hich were defend ants . Carp en ter’ s was te was not incl ud ed in that s t i pul a t i on. Thi r d, on Ju n e 2 3 , 2008, the pl a i nt i ffs and de fe ndant H& H s t i pul a t e d t o the vol um e of wa s t e tha t DCC c ol l e c t e d fr om

thr e e of the pl a i nt i ffs – Cy t e c , For d, and SPS – and from H&H. Im

po rt antl y , Carpente r did not jo in th at st ipulat ion. Finall y , on July 1, 20 08 , the plai ntiffs, C ar penter , and H& H s t i pul a t e d t o the fa c t tha t th e w aste de s c r i be d i n the June 23 s t i pul a t i on wa s ha z ar dous wa s t e a s def in ed by rd CERCLA. T he y

a l s o s t i pul a t e d that

DCC ha d not

haul e d any wa s t e fr om TI or Age r e t o the Boarhe a d Si t e
. Thus , whi l e the effect of t he July 1 st ipulat ion is c on te st ed, i t i s und is pu te d that

st Carpente r never dire ct ly

st ipulat ed to the volum e of w as te that Cy te c, Fo rd, SPS , and H&H h ad contri bu te d to the Bo ar head Site

. ii. Be nc h Tr i al
P u rsu an t to C E R C L A , th e D istrict C o u rt’s resp o n sib ility i nc l ude d “ a l l oc a t [i ng] r e s pons e c os t s a m ong l i abl e part i e s us i ng such equita

ble fac to rs as the c ou rt dete rm ine[d] [to b e] approp ri at e. ” 42 U.S.C. § 9 61 3(f)(1). The Cou rt deci ded that th e p arties’ v ario u s v o lu m es o f w aste at th e B o arh ead S ite co n stitu tedth e m o st eq u itab le b asis up o n w h ich to allo cate c os t s
. He nc e , the pur

pos e of the be nc h tr ial, h eld i n Jul y of 20 08 , w as to figu re ou t as a m atte r o f f ac t what tho se vo lum es we r e , i nc l u d in g the vol um e s a t tr i but abl e t o Car pe nt e r
. The Court a l s o he l d tha t

c ul pabi l i ty

and the de gr e e of c oop erati on th e p arties h add em o n stratedin d ealin g w ith th e clean up sh o u ld b e co n sid eredin allo catin g resp o n se co sts.T he co st s broke d ow n as fo l l ow s: 19

• A ger e: $902, 152. 49

• C y t ec: $3, 368, 551. 07

• For d: $3, 354, 122. 22

• SPS : $3, 354, 122. 22

• T I : $2, 699, 430. 55

T he 62. 6% w as cal cul at ed as fol l ow s : t he C our t found t hat 20 t he vol um e of w as t e di s pos ed of a t t he B oar head Si t e fr om al l of t he pl ai nt i ffs , and t he s et t l ed and di s m i s s ed par t i es , as w el l as C ar pent er , w as 1, 594, 668 gal l ons. T he C our t found t hat t he t ot al vol um e of w as t e di s posed of at t he B oar head Si t e by
12 Th e Distri ct Co urt fo un d that the plai ntiffs had incurred c os t s t ot a l i ng $13, 678, 378. 55 a s of De c e m be r 31, 2007. The

19 Court the n c onc l ude d tha t

thos e co sts h a d be e n i nc urr e d of ne c e s s i ty i n c om pl yi ng wi th the r e qui r e m e nt s of the ROD. The Court a l s o he l d tha t

c l e anup a t the Boarhe a d Si t e m us t c ont i nue un ti l t he organic and inorganic contam inants in t he gr ound wate r r e a c h an a c c e pt abl e l e ve l a s s e t fo rth b y the EP A i n the RO D. T h u s, th e C o u rt n o ted , th e p lain tif f s w ill co n tin u e to in cu r co sts f o r th e f o reseeab le f

u tu re. To pr ov e the wast e vo l um e s a t the Si t e , the pl a i nt i ff

s pres ente d tes ti m on y

from tr uck d ri vers wh o h ad been em ploy ed by DC C. Base d on that te st im on y and the ab o v e- desc ri bed stip u latio n s, the Court

c a l c ul a t e d the vol um e of wa s t e tha t DCC coll ec te d f

r om e a c h o f the part i e s , andthe n c a l c ul a t e d w ha t perc enta ge of

that wast e was disposed of at the Boarhea d S it e. Re gar di ng Car

pe nt e r ’ s wa s t e vol um e s , the Court a l s o ha d the b en ef it o f C arp en ter’s b u sin ess reco rd s, w h ich co n f irm edp arts of the te st im on y of the DC C dri vers
. Th e Co urt fo un d th at C arp en t e r ’ s w aste co n stitu ted6 2 .6 % o f th e h azard o u s w aste disposed of

at the Boarhea d S it e. 20C ar pent er w as 998, 284 gal l ons
. T hus , t he C our t det er m i ned t hat C a rp e n te r’ s p e r c e n t a g e s h a re o f th e to ta l v o lu m e w a s 6 2 .6 %

. T he r ecor d i s not cl ear as t o w hat r egul atory aut hor i t y or 21 aut hor i t i es decide d t hat R ever e and Echo coul d no l onger o p e ra te

. W e r efe r t o t he appe ndi x on appea l by t he vol um e number 22 fol l ow ed b y a col on and t he page num ber on w hi ch t he ci t ed
m at er i al appea r s , fol l ow ed by s peci fi c par agr aphs , i f appl i cabl e.

13 The pl a i nt i ffs a l s o pr e s e nt e d ev i de nc e tha t i n 1969 Carpente r hir ed two w as te coll ec ti on com panies , Rever e Che m i c a l Com

pany ( “ Re v e r e ” ) a

nd Ec ho, I nc
. ( “ Ec ho” ) , t o haul i t s wa s t e a c i ds

. Car

pe nt e r kne w tha t

Manfr e d D eR e wa l , who l a t e r founde d DCC, wa s the pr e s i de nt of Re ve r e and Ec ho. The evidence s h o w ed that

in 19 70 Carpente r l earned that Revere an dE ch o w ere sh u t d o w n f o r u n law f u l p o llu tin g p racti c es. 21 Neverth eles s, in June 19 73 , Car penter hire d D CC , which C arp en ter k n ew w as o w n edb y D eR ew al, sim

p ly b ecau se D C C ’s b idw as sig n if

ican tly b elo w th e co m

p etin g b i d s. Be c aus e “ Car

pe nt e r r e l i nqui s he d i t s pot e nt

wa s t e a c i ds t o a k n o w n p o llu ter,” an db ecau se C arp en ter d idn o t co o p erate w ith the EPA, the Court a l l oc a t e d t o Car pe nt e r an a ddi t i ona l 17. 4% of the t ot a l c l e an- up c os t

– 8. 7% for r e pe a t e dl y

worki ng wi th a kn ow n po l l ut e r

and8. 7% fo r

no t c oo pe r a t i ng wi th the EP A – h o ld i n g th at “cu lp ab ility is an ap p ro p riate eq u itab le f acto r in re solving co n tr ibution cla im s. ” ( Ap p. at 1:A7 2.) In other

22 wor ds , the C o u rt

a djus t e d Car

pe nt e r ’ s s har e of l i abi l i ty above wha t i t ha d de t e rm i ne d t o be C arp en te r ’ s vol um e tr i c s har e of wa s t e , ba s e d on Car

pe nt e r ’ s s i gni fi c ant

c ul pabi l i ty

i n c r e a t i ng aSupe r fund s i t e and i t s l a c k of c oope r a t i on i n c l e ani ng i t up.14 On Augus t

22, 2008, the Di s tr i c t

Court e nt e r e d jud gm e nt a ga i ns t Car pe nt e r , fi ndi ng i t

l i abl e for 8 0 % (6 2

. 6% pl us 8. 7% pl us 8. 7%) of the $13, 678, 378. 55 pa i d by the pl a i nt i ffs a s of D ecem b er 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 , p lu s p rej u d g m en t in terest. T h at resu ltedin ajudgm e nt

of $10, 942, 702. 84 a ga i ns t C ar pe nt e r
. The r e m a i ni ng 20% of l i abi l i ty wa s a l l oc at e d t o the pl a i nt i ffs

. The C o u rt also en tereda d eclarato ry j u d g me n t th at C arp en ter is l i abl e for 80% of a l l futur e c os t s , a s m e a s ur e d fr om J anuary 1, 20 08 , for re spon se ac ti on s pursuant t o the O U-1 and the OU -2 Co nsent D ec rees . Final ly , the Co urt fou nd that Carpente r’ s l i abi l i ty un de r the HS CA par a l l e l s i t s l i abi l i ty un de r CE RC LA

. C arp en ter f

iled a m o tio n to alter o r am en dth e j u d g m en t, whi c h the Di s tr i c t

Court de ni e d o n F ebr

uary 20, 2009. C arp en ter th en f

ileda tim ely

n o tice o f ap p eal to o u r C o u rt.
II . Statem ent of J uris dict ion a nd Stan da rd of Review
T h e D istrict C o u rt h adj u r i s d i ctio n o v er th e p lain tif f s’ CERCLA c l a i m s pur s uant t o 42 U. S.C

. § 9613( b) and 28 U. S. C. § 1331. I t

ha d s uppl e m e nt a l jur i s di c t i on ove r the HSC A c l a i m s u n d e r

2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 3 6 7

. W e h a v e j u r i s di c t i on p u rsu an t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1

. “W e m ay se t a si de [a] d is tr ic t c ou rt ’s fin d in g s of f ac t on ly if they ar e c le ar ly

er roneou s. ” F

M C C o rp . v. U

.S. D ep ’t. of Co mm erce , 2 9 F .3 d8 3 3 , 8 3 8 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 4 ); cf. In re F ru ehauf Trai l e r Cor p. , 444 F. 3d 203, 210 ( 3d Ci r
. 2006) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha t “ [f]a c t

ua l fi ndi ngs m ay onl y be ove rt u rn ed if the y ar e c om pl e t e l y de voi d of ac r e di bl e e vi de nt i ary ba s i s or be ar no r a t i ona l r e l a t i ons hi p t o the s upport i ng da t a ” ( c i t a t i on o m itted ) (in tern al q u o tatio n o m itted )).
Howe ve r , we r e vi e w adi s tr i c t c ourt ’ s a l l oc a t i on of C E R C L A resp o n s e c o sts f o r ab u se o f

d iscretio n
. B ea zer E ., I nc
. v
. Me ad Cor

p. , 412 F .3 d 42 9, 44 6 n .18 (3d Cir. 20 05 ).Sect i on 107( a) act ual l y s ay s “cons i s t ent w i t h t he nat i onal 23 cont i ngencypl an, ” s ee 42 U

. S. C

. § 9607( a), w h ic h, as not ed
15 “An abu se of

disc re ti on occurs wh en ‘the dist ri ct court’ s de c i s i on r e s t s upon a c l e ar l y e rr one ous fi ndi ng of fa c t , an e rr ant conclusi on of la w o r an im prop er applic at ion o f law to fact. ’” Id

. ( quot i ng Int’ l Union v. Ma ck Trucks , I nc. , 820 F. 2d 91, 95 (3 dC ir. 1 9 8 7 )).
Finall y , we e xerc is e ple nary re view ov e r

a di stri ct court’ s i nt e r pr e t a t i on of CERCLA, i nc l udi ng s t a t ut e of l i m i t a t i ons issu es. Uni t e d Stat es v
. Se

. Pa. Tra n sp . A u th. , 235 F. 3d 817, 822 ( 3d Ci r
. 2000) ; s e e al s o Ne w Cas t l e Count

yv
. Hal l i bur t on NUS Cor p. , 1 1 1 F. 3d 1116, 1120 ( 3d Ci r
. 1997) ( e xpl a i ni ng th at, in ap p ro ach in g a statu te o f l i m itatio n s issu e, w e m u st

“ e xe r c i s e pl e nary

r e vi e w ove r

the di s tr i c t

c ourt ’ s i nt e r

pr e t a t i on o f th e relev an t C E R C L A ... p ro v isio n s”).
I I I . Di s c us s i on A

. Stat ut or

yBac k gr ound Law
Al l of Ca r

pe nt e r ’ s c ont e nt i ons on appe a l i nvol ve the plai ntiffs’ c la im s und er

CE RC LA § 1 07 (a ) for cost re covery and § 11 3(f) fo r c o ntri bu ti on . Thu s, we pres ent a brie f ove rvi e w of thos e two s t a t ut ory r e m e di e s b e for e a ddr e s s i ng C arp en ter’s sp ecif

ic co n ten tio n s. CERCLA pr ovi de s two m ech ani s m s tha t a l l ow po te ntia ll y

re spon si ble parti es (“ PR Ps”) to re co v er cost s they h av e ex p en d ed to d eco n tam in ate a p o llu tedsite: § 1 0 7 (a) co st reco v ery claim s an d § 1 1 3 (f ) co n trib u tio n claim s. T h e f irst o p ti on, § 107( a ) , pr ovi de s tha t PRPs ar e l i abl e for “ any
... ne c e ssary c os t s of r e s pons e i nc urr e d by any othe r pe r s on” consis te nt with CE RC LA

. 42 U.S.C. § 9 60 7(a) (4)( B). 23above ( s u p r a n o t e 8) , i s t he fe der al gover nm ent ’ s pl an for re s p o n d in g to re le a s e s o f h a z a rd o u s s u b s t a n c e s
. Ni ag ara Mohaw k Pw r
. C or

p. , 2 0 1 0 W L 6 2 6 0 6 4 , a t * 3

. S ect i on 10 7 al so provides t he E P A w i t h a m ech a n ism to 24
re c o v e r c o sts f

ro m P R P s, sta tin g th a t P R P s a re liab le f o r “ a ll co s t s o f r e mov a l o r r e me d i a l a c t i o n i n c u r r e d b y t h e Uni t ed St at es G over nm ent or a St at e or an I ndi an t r i be not i ncons i s t ent w it h the n ati o n al c o n ti n g en cy p lan.” 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 9 6 0 7 (a)(4)(A ). T h is asp ec t of

§ 1 0 7 is no t at issue in the p rese n t m att er.

16 Sect ion 10 7(a) thus al lows privat e parti es to bring cost r ec ov er y suit s a gainst

other PRP s, and cou rt s hav e d evel op ed se vera l

24 p rin cip les f

o r ap p licatio n in s u c h su its. 4 T HE L AW OF H A ZAR D O U S WAS T E § 1 4 .0 1 [ 2 ] [ c] (S u sa n M . C o o k e, ed., 20 09 ). Sign ific antl y , § 107 (a ) al lows fo r com plet e c ost r ec ov er

y un der a joint and sever al li abil it y sc hem e. Se e N. J

. Tp k

. Au t h. v
. PP G In d u s. , Inc. , 197 F.3d 96 , 10 4 ( 3d Cir. 19 99 ). Init ia ll y , “ [w ]h en C E R C L A w as f

irst en acted , [ § 1 0 7 co st reco v ery ] w as th e o n ly r e m e dy a va i l abl e , and [c ]ourt s s tr uggl e d wi th w he the r

PRPs ( the m s e l ve s l i abl e for s om e of the c l e anup) c oul d i nvoke § 107 fo r con tr ibution from other P RP s f or thei r propo rt ionate shar e of the c osts as op po se d to full c ost r ec ov er y .” Ni agara Mohawk Pwr

. Cor p. , 2 0 1 0 WL 6 2 6 0 6 4 , at * 3

. C o n g ress u ltim ately p ro v id edth e lan g u ag e n ecessary to au th o rize co n trib u tio n u n d er C E R C L A w h en it ad d ed§ 1 1 3 to th e statu to ry

sch em e w ith t h e p a ssag e o f S A RA

. I

d. a t *3. Se c t i on 113( f) s pe c i fi c a l l y i s as e c ond m ean s of r e c oupi ng c l e anup c os ts , a ndi t , i n t ur n, pr ov i de s two a ve nu e s of r e l i e f. Un der § 113 (f)( 1), a PR P c an se ek contri bu ti on fr o m an other PRP dur i ng or

fol l owi ng aCERCLA s uit b r ought a ga i ns t the f irst P R P . 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 1 3 (f )(1 ); see a lso U

n ited Sta tes v. A tl. Res e ar ch C or

p. , 551 U.S. 12 8, 13 9 (20 07 ) ( explai ning that

“ [s ]e c t i on 113( f) ( 1) author i z e s ac ontr i but i on a c t i on t o PRPsS e c ti o n 1 0 6 a u th o riz e s th e U n ited S tate s to b rin g a su it 25
s eeki ng i nj unct ive re l i ef t o abat e “i m m i nent and s ubs t ant i al endange r m ent ” res ul t i ng fr om t he r el eas e of a haza r dous s ubs t ance
. T h e s ect i on al s o aut hor i zes t he EP A t o i s s ue an a d m in is tr a tiv e o rd e r t o a b a te s u c h a c o n d itio n
. See 4 2 U. S

. C. § 9 6 0 6 ; see al

so 4 T HE L A W O F H AZAR DOUS W AS TE § 1 4

. 0 2 [1 ][c ] (Su san M

. C o o k e, ed

. , 2 0 0 9 ).
17 with comm on li abil it

y st em m ing f rom an ac ti on inst it

uted un der [CERCLA]” )

. Li ke wi s e , unde r §113( f) ( 3) ( B) , PRPs who reso lv e th eir liab ility to th e U n itedS tates o r an in d iv idu al S tate thr ough an a dm i ni s tr a t i ve l y or judi c i a l l y

a ppr ove d s et t l e m e nt c an s e e k c ontr i but i on fr om anothe r PRP. 42 U. S. C. § 9 6 1 3 (f )(3 )(B ); s e e al

s o At l

. Res e ar c h Cor

p. , 551 U. S. a t

139 n.5 (“Sim il ar ly , § 11 3(f)(3)(B) per mits a PR P to see k contri bu ti on afte r i t ‘ has r es olved its li abil it y to the Unite d Stat es or a State

.. . i n an adm inis tr at ive or jud ic ia ll y approv ed se tt le m ent .

.. .’ ” ( qu oting 4 2 U .S.C. § 96 13 (f)( 3)(B)) ).
I n Atlantic Rese arch , th e S up rem e C o u rt en d eav o redto c l ar i f y th e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e tw e e n § 1 0 7 ( a ) c o s t r e c o v e r y c l a i ms and § 11 3(f) contri bu ti on cl ai m s, no ti ng that those r em edie s are d istin ct. Se e At l

. Res e ar c h Cor p. , 5 5 1 U .S . at 1 3 8 (“[ S ectio n s] 1 0 7 (a) an d1 1 3 (f

) p ro v id e tw o ‘clearly

d istin ct’ rem ed ies. ‘C E R C L A p ro v id e[ s] f

o r a ri g h t to co st reco v ery in certain circu m sta n c e s, § 1 0 7 (a), an dsep arate rig h ts to co n trib u tio n in othe r c i r c um s t anc e s , §§ 113( f) ( 1) , 113( f) ( 3) ( B)

. ’ ” ( quot i ng Coope r I ndus

. , I nc. v . Avi all Serv. , I

nc. , 5 4 3 U .S . 1 5 7 , 1 6 3 n .3 (200 4))) . W it

h regard t o § 11 3(f) contri bu ti on cl ai m s, the Cou rt h eld th at a p riv ate p arty m ay n o t b rin g a co n trib u tio n c l aim un l e s s i t ha s be e n s ue d u nd e r

§ 1 06 or § 1 07 of CE RC LA

. 25 Se e Coope r

I ndus

. , I nc. 54 3 U .S. at 168 (e xp la inin g that § 113( f) “author i z e s c ontr i but i on c l a i m s onl y ‘ dur i ng or f o llo w in g ’ a civ il actio n u n d er § 1 0 6 o r § 1 0 7 (a)”); see a lso A tl. Res e ar c h Cor

p. , 55 1 U.S. at 13 9 (“Sec ti on 11 3(f)(1) authoriz es18 a c ontr i but i on a c t i on t o PRPs wi th c omm on l i abi l i ty s t e mm i ng f ro m an actio n in stitu ted u n d er [ C E R C L A ] .”). With reg ardto § 1 0 7 (a) co st reco v ery

claim s, th e C o u rt h eldth at a p riv ate p arty wh o v olun tari ly

un dert akes a c le anup ac ti on – and is ther efore unabl e t o s u e u nde r

§ 113( f) be c aus e i t

“ r e m e di a t e d the ha z ar dous m a t e r i a l [] wi tho u t th e judi c i a l s pur of § 106 or § 1 07 ” – can see k rec ov er y of re sp o n se cost s und er § 1 07 (a)(4)(B). Ni agara Mohawk Pwr

. Cor

p. , 201 0 WL 626064, a t

*3 ( de s c r i bi ng At l

. Res e ar c h Cor p. , 5 5 1 U .S. at 139)

. Thus , a pr i va t e party m ay r e c ove r unde r § 107( a ) wi thout an y e s t ab l i s h m e n t

o f l i ab i l i t y o n i t s p art

t o ath i r dp arty, in clu d in g th e g o v ern m en t. A tl. R ese ar c h Cor p. , 551 U.S. at 139

. In s hor

t , t he Cour t s u mm arizedth e d istin ctio n as f o llo w s: [T ]h e r e m e di e s a va i l abl e i n § § 1 07 ( a ) and11 3( f) c om pl e m e nt e a c h othe r

by pr ov i di ng c aus e s of ac tion to pers on s i n d ifferent procedural circu m stan ces ... . S ectio n 1 1 3 (f )(1 ) au th o rizes a c ontr i but i on a c t i on t o PRPs wi th c omm on li abil it y st em m ing from an ac ti on inst it uted un der

.. . § 10 7(a) . A nd § 10 7(a) perm it s c ost r ec ov er y (as d isti n ct f

ro m co n trib u tio n ) b y

a p riv ate p arty th at h as itself

in cu rredclean up co sts.
I d. (citatio n s o m itted ) (in t e rn al q u o tatio n s o m itted ). D esp ite thi s c l ar i fi c a t i on, na vi ga t i ng the i nt e r pl ay be twe e n § 107( a ) and § 1 1 3 (f ) rem ain s a d eep ly

d if f icu lt task

. Se e Ne w Yor k v

. So lv ent Chem. Co ., Inc. , No. 83 -CV-14 01 -J TC , 201 0 WL 376328, a t

*67 ( W

. D. N

. Y. J an. 26, 2010) ( “ [R]e c e nt r ul i ngs ha ve done little t o pr ovi de the l owe r c ourt s wi th us e ful gu i danc e i n de t e rm i ni ng wh i c h s ub s e c t i on of CE RC LA pr ovi de s ac aus e of a c t i on for part i e s s e e ki ng r e i m bur s e m e nt

of resp o n se co sts in d i f

f erin g situ atio n s.”); see a lso id

. a t *64 (“P erh ap s m o st p erp lex in g is th e in terp lay b etw een th e tw o co st19 r e c ove ry pr ovi s i ons whi c h thi s c ourt m us t a ppl y i n r e s ol vi ng the diff ic ult fac tual and legal is sues .” ). Th e s om et im es blurry r e l a t i on s hi p b e twe e n § 10 7( a ) c os t r e c ov e ry c l a i m s a nd§ 1 13 ( f) contri bu ti on cl ai m s i s a them e t o w h ic h w e w il l r et urn r e pe a t e dl y

i n thi s opi ni on.
B

. I s s ues on Appe al
Th e iss ues rai se d by Carpente r o n appeal can be grou ped in to six o v erarch in g co n ten tio n s. Th e fi r s t i s that pl a i nt i ff s Cy t e c , Fo r d, SP S, a ndTI can n o t b r in g a § 1 1 3 (f

) co n trib u tio n claim

f o r th e ap p ro x im ately $7 m i l l i on the y

pa id t o the EPA unde r the OU- 2 Cons e nt De c r e e t o r e i m

bur s e the EPA for

i t s r e s pons e c os t s be c aus e the EP A’s suit to enfo rc e the OU -2 Co nsent Decr ee w as tim ebarr e d. Ac c or di ng to C arpe nt e r , i t doe s not s har e ac omm on l i abi l i ty with tho s e pl a i nt i ff

s be c aus e no ne of

the pl a i nt i ff

s co u ldh av e b een su ed b y th e E P A at th e tim e th ey ch o se to settle w ith th e ag en cy
. Se c ond, Car

pe nt e r ar gue s tha t

Age r e and TI c a

nnot br i ng a § 1 0 7 (a) co st reco v ery

claim f o r su m s th ey p a i d p u rsu an t to p r i v a t e s e t t l e me n t s w i th o th e r p l a i n t i f f s , a s o p p o s e d t o s u ms pa i d t o th e E P A d i r e c t l y , b e c au s e § 1 0 7 ( a ) d o e s n o t a l l o w for th e reco v ery

o f su ch p ay m en ts.
Th ir d, Carpente r ar gu es that those plai ntiffs wh o signed the OU- 1 and OU- 2 Cons e nt De c r e e s – Cy

t e c , For d, and SPS – a s we l l as TI , who s i gne d the OU- 2 Cons e nt De c r e e onl y , do no t h av e § 10 7(a) cost

re covery cl ai m s for cost s e xp ended pu rs uant to the OU -1 and OU-2 C on se nt Decr ee s bec ause , once a p arty h as b een su ed o r h as settled u n d er C E R C L A , th at p arty m ay pu rs ue on ly

a § 11 3(f) contri bu ti on cl ai m . T hu s, Carpente r c ont e nds , thos e pl a i nt i ffs ha ve nothi ng but § 113 (f) avai la ble a s20 a v eh i c le f

o r tryin g to reco v er th e am o u n ts th ey ex p en d edto co m p ly w ith th e O U -1 an dO U -2 C o n sen t D ecrees. Fo urth, r ec og nizi ng that the Dis tr ic t Cou rt proceeded un der § 11 3(f) with regar d to tho se cl ai m s, and n ot un der § 1 07 (a ), Carpente r argues that Cy te c, Fo rd, SP S, and T I fai le d to pres ent e vidence of the tota l vo lum e of wast e disposed of at the Boarhe a d Si t e and, the r e for e , the Di s tr i c t Court ’ s a l l oc a t i on of l i ab i l i ty

a m o n g th e p art i e s u n d e r § 1 1 3 ( f ) c an n o t s t and. Spe c i fi c a l l y , Car

pe nt e r ar gue s tha t , othe r

than the s t i p u lat i on tha t i t r e fus e d t o s i gn, the pl a i nt i ffs ha ve fa i l e d t o i ntr oduc e any e vi de nc e of the vol um e of waste f o r whi c h Cy

t e c , For d, SPS, an dH &H are resp o n sib le. With o u t ev id en ce as to th o se p arties, s ay s Car pe nt e r , i t i s i m pos s i bl e t o know the t ot al v o lum e of w aste d isp o sedo f

at th e B o arh eadS ite.
F if th , C arp en ter arg u es th at th e D istrict C o u rt e r r e d in thre e way s i n its cost

al locati on . Fir st , Car

penter contends that the Co urt m is ca lc ulat ed the vo lum et ri c shar e of wast e t hat f o rm er d ef

en d an t N R M sen t to th e B o arh eadS ite. N ex t, C arp en ter say s th at th e C o u rt d id n o t co n sid er o th er d ef en d an ts’ c u l p ab i l i t y o r l a c ko f

c o o p e r a t i o n w i th th e E P A t o th e s a me e xt e nt tha t i t c ons i de r e d Car

pe nt e r ’ s l a c k of co o p e r a t i on and c ul pabi l i ty
. As i t s l a s t c os t a l l oc a t i on poi nt , Car pe nt e r c ont e nds tha t the Di s tr i c t

Court wr ongl y

c ons i de r e d th e s e t t l i ng de f endants’ vo lum etri c s hare of wast e, rather

than the dollar a m ount s tha t

the pl a i nt i ffs obt a i ne d fr omthos e s e t t l i ng de fe ndant s , whe n the Court pe r form e d i t s e qui t abl e a l l oc a t i on. Sixth and finall y , Car penter argu es that , s ince § 7 02 ( a ) ( 3) of

the HS CA m i rr or s § 107 ( a ) ( 4) ( B) of CE RC LA , the pl a i nt i ffs do not ha ve a vi abl e c l a i m unde r tha t s e c t i on of the HSCA, for

the s a m e r easo ns tha t Car pe nt e r be l i e ve s the p lain tif f s d o n o t h av e a claim

u n d er § 1 0 7 o f

C E R C L A

.21 C

. Cy t e c , Ford, SPS, an d TI ’ s § 113( f ) Clai m f or Re i mbur s e me nt of Pay me nt s Made t o t

he EPA f or P a st Co sts i

. Bac k

gr ound
The OU- 2 Cons e nt De c r e e obl i ga t e d the pl a i nt i ffs who s i gne d i t – Cy

t e c , For d, SPS, and TI – t o r e i m bur s e the EPA for a per ce ntage of p as t respo nse c osts that the EPA had incurred in vari ou s re m ov al effo rt s at the Bo ar head Site , incl ud ing w ork relatedto th e O U -1 C o n sen t D ecree. S p ecif ically , p u rsu an t to the OU- 2 Cons e nt

De c r e e , C y

t e c , For d, SPS, and TI a gr e e d, a m ong othe r

thi ngs , t o r e i m

bur s e the EPA for

a ppr oxi m a t e l y

$7 m illio n in resp o n se co sts in cu rredan dacco u n tedf o rp rio r to Jul y 2000. I n th eir f

if th a m e nde d c om

pl a i nt , thos e four plai ntiffs as se rt ed a contri bu ti on cl ai m un der § 11 3(f), s e e ki ng reim b u rsem en t f

ro m C arp en ter f

o r th at $ 7 m illio n
. On a ppe a l , Carpe nt e r

a r gue s tha t

the pl a i nt i ffs c annot r e c o v e r th e $ 7 m i l l i o n b e c au s e th e r e w a s n o “ c o mm o n l i ab i l i ty” a m on g C ar

pe nt e r andthe pl a i nt i ff

s a t the t i m e the pl a i nt i ff

s s e t t l e dw i th th e E P A , a s r e q u i r e db y Atla n ti c Res earc h . More p articu larly , C arp en ter co n ten d s th at n o co mm o n liab ility ex ists be c aus e , wh en the EPA br ought s ui t a ga i ns t the pl a i nt i ffs on Decem ber 6, 200 1 to enf

orce the OU-2 C o n se n t Dec re e, that suit , and ther efore any

hy po thet ic al suit

agai nst Car

penter , was tim e-b arred . T h e p lain tif f s, o f co u rse, say

th at C arp en ter is m istak en ab o u t th e statu te o f lim itatio n s.
ii. T h e S ta tu te o

f L im ita tio n s to R eco ver P a st Co sts
Contr i but i on c l a i m s unde r § 113( f) requi r e a“ c omm on liab ility ” am o n g P R P s at th e tim e th e u n d erlyin g claim is reso lv ed

. See At l

. Res e ar c h Cor p. , 55 1 U

. S. a t

13 9 ( “ [A ] PRP’ s r i ght

t o c ontr i but i on unde r

§ 113( f) ( 1) i s c ont i nge nt

upon22 ... co mm o n liab ility

am o n g liab le p arties.”); I n r e Re adi ng Co. , 11 5 F

. 3d11 11 , 12 24 ( 3d Ci r
. 19 97 ) ( “ Co ntr i bu t i on , by i t s ow n definiti on , r equire s a

comm on li abil it

y fo r the s am e i nj ury .” ), ab r ogat i on on ot

he r grou nd s r e c ogni z e d b yE. I

. Du Po nt De N em o urs & Co . v . Unite d S tates , 46 0 F

. 3d51 5, 51 8 ( 3dCi r. 2 0 0 6 ). T h u s, C arp en ter co rrectly asserts th at, in o rd er f

o r it to b e l i ab l e u n d e r

§ 1 1 3 ( f ) , i t m u s t h a v e h a da“ c o mm o n l i ab i l i ty” wi th the pl a i nt i ffs a t the t i m e the EPA fi l e d s ui t t o e nfor c e the O U -2 C o n sen t D ecree. In o th er w o rd s, t h e E P A claim m u st ha ve be e n vi abl e a ga i ns t both the pl a i nt i ffs and Car pe nt e r a t the ti m e the E PA soug ht to enfo rc e the OU -2 Co nsent Dec re e; o th erw ise, th ere is n o “‘co mm o n liab ility ’ to serv e as th e b asis of a contri bu ti on ac ti on .” (App el lant’s Op

. Br. at 14 .) Hence, th is co n ten tio n b o ils d o w n to a q u estio n ab o u t th e a p p licab le statu te o f lim itatio n s. Th e tim el ines s o f an EP A suit to re cover cost s a ss ociate d with a r em ov al ac ti on is g o v er n ed by § 1 13 (g)( 2), which re qu ir es that

any such suit

b e b ro ug ht “within 3 y ears afte r com plet ion o f the re m ov al ac ti on .” 42 U.S.C. § 9 61 3(g)(2)(A). At the sam e tim e, the s tatute prov ides fo r three exce ptions that exte nd the l im it at io ns peri od . Before addres si ng those, howe ve r , we m

us t de scri be m or e ful l y

Car pe nt e r ’ s s t a t

ut e of li m it at ions ar gu m ent and an es se ntia l flaw in the Distri ct C o u rt’s d ecisio n
. Carpente r argues that the EP A’s c la im is ti m e- b ar

re d beca use the EP A com

plet ed it s r em ov al ac ti on on No vem ber 18 , 19 98 , bu t di d no t i ni t i a t e i t s l aws ui t a ga i ns t the pla i nt i ff s unt i l De c e m

be r 6, 2001 , m or e than thr e e y e ar s a ft e r the co mp le ti on of

the r em ov al ac ti on . As Car penter se es it , s ince none of the e xc e pt i ons t o the thr e e - y ear sta t ut e of l i m i t a t i ons a p p l y, th e E P A ’ s l aw s u i t

a g a i n s t th e p l a i n t i f

f s w a s u n t i m e l y, an d, i f C ar

pe nt e r ha d b e e n n a m e d a s ade fe nd ant , the EP A’ s cl ai m s a gainst

it wo uld h ave b ee n un ti m el y too. Carpente r has r i ght l y i de nt i fi e d th e co mp l e t i on of the r e m ova l a c t i on a s the23 poi nt fr om whi c h the s t a t

ut e of l i m i t atio n s be gi ns t o r un. The Distri ct Co urt hel d that the EP A “ cond ucte d a si ng le ‘r em ov al a c t i o n ’ w h i c h e n d e d , a t

th e e ar l i e s t , o n N o v e m

b e r 1 8 , 1 998, whe n E PA i s s ue d the RO D. ” ( Ap p. a t 1: A6 4. ) I n a n a c c om panyi ng footnot e i n i t s opi ni on, howe ve r , the Court s a i d, “[i] t is m ore l ikel y

that EP A’s r em ov al ac ti on was ong oing as of Septem ber 28, 20 00 .” (App

. at 1:A6 4 n.38.) Despit e it s “ at the e ar li es t” caveat

wh en ci ti ng the Nov em

ber 18, 19 98 date , a nd a l s o d e s p i t e i t s c o mm e n t o n th e “ m o r e l i k e l y ” c o u r s e of e ve nt s , th e Di s tr i c t

Court we nt on t o s ay tha t , i n or de r

t o gi ve Car pe nt e r e ve ry r e a s on abl e c on s i de r a t i on , i t wo ul d “ s e l e c t [] ” the Nov em

ber 18, 19 98 date as the dat e that the EP A com plet ed th e rem o v al actio n . (

I d. )
Given the m agnitu d e an d com plexity of the r ec ord, as well as the deca des of

EP A inv olvem ent at t

he Bo ar head Site , w e c an a p p r e c i a t e th e d i f f i c u l ty i n d e t e rmi n i n g th e t i me f r a me wi thi n whi c h the EPA c om pl e t e d i t s r e m oval a c t i on. Neverthele ss , by st at ing that i t was “m ore l ikel y ” that r em ov al wo rk was ong oing on Septemb er 28 , 200 0, bu t t hen “select[ in g ] ” th e earlier d ate o f N o v em b er 1 8 , 1 9 9 8 as th e d ate tha t work wa s c om

pl e t e d, the Court

ha s l e ft al e ga l l y s i gni fi c ant am b ig u ity in th e reco rd

. T h ere is n o clear f in d in g o f f act as to a dat e or e ven a range of d at es within wh ic h the EP A’s r em ov al w o rkw as co m

p leted

. O f c o u r s e , a c o u rt

may , f o r an a l y t i c a l p u r p o s e s , a s s u me fact s i n f avor of a party to dem on strate that , e ven u nd er that p arty ’s m o st ad v an ta g eo u s v iew o f th e reco rd , leg al relief

is un av a i l abl e
. Th a t

a pp e ar s t o h a ve be e n the Di s tr i c t Co ur t’ s inte ntion h ere. Neverthele ss , the op inion is not enti re ly cl ear and the r e i s a s tr ong i m

pl i c a t i on tha t the c om

pl e t i on da t e of the E P A ’s rem o v al w o rk w as later th an th e selectedd ate, w h ich , if tr ue, i s of rea l i m

po rt ance in this ca se
. If the r em ov al wo rk was o n g o in g as o f

S ep tem b er 2 8 , 2 0 0 0 , as i n d i c atedb y th e C o u rt, then the a

pp li ca bili ty of com plic at ed excepti on s t o the thre e-W e d o n o t d isc o u n t th e p o ss ib ili ty th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id 26 not m a k e a d e f

i n i t i v e f i n d i n g b e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d wou l d not s uppor t one. A l s o, i f t he D i s t r i ct C our t’ s fi ndi ng of fa ct t ur ns out t o be t hat t he r em o v al act i on ended s om et i m e af t er Sept ember 28, 2000, t hat w i ll be s uffi ci ent , s i nce, w i t h t hat f in d i ng , C y t ec, F ord, S P S , and T I’ s cl ai m s t o recov er for t he ir app roxi mat e l y $7 mi l l i on r e i mbur s e ment t o t he EPA fo r pa st r es pons e costs w oul d be t i m el y , as i s m or e ful l y di s cus s ed h e re in

. See inf

ra S e c tio n II I.C .iii.
W e al s o as k t he D i s t r i ct C our t t o m ake a defi ni t i ve fi ndi ng 27
as t o t he amount t hat t he O U

- 2 pl ai nt i ffs pai d t o r ei m bur s e t he E PA for pas t cos t s
. W hi l e t he s t i pul at ed fa ct s ci t e t he amount as $7 m i l l i on i n one pl ace , i n anot her pl ace i t appea rs to be appr o x i ma t e l y $ 7

. 4 mi l l i o n , a n d Ca r p e n t e r c i t e s t h e a mou n t as $ 7 .4 m illio n . ( C om

par e A p p . a t 1 4 :A 6 3 7 9 ¶ 4 0 , and A pp. at 1 4 :A 6 3 8 3 ¶ 5 9 , w i t h A p p ell an t’ s O p
. B r. at 13

. )
24 y ear s tatute of

li m it at ions becom es ir

re le vant, and the EPA ’s su it w as tim ely

reg ard less o f

th o se ex cep tio n s. Be c aus e the Di s tr i c t Court ha s not m a de afa c t ua l fi ndi ng s uffi c i e nt t o de t e rm i ne whe the r

or not the EPA’ s De c e m

be r 6, 2 0 0 1 en f o rcem en t su it f

o r th e O U -2 C o n sen t D ecree w as tim ely unde r the thr e e - y e ar

s t a t ut e of l i m i t a t i ons , we will v a c a t e the ju dg m ent and re m an d f

o r the Co urt t o m ake an u nequ ivocal fi ndi ng a s t o the da t e or t i m e pe r i od wi thi n wh ich th e EPA c om pl e t e d i t s r e m ov a l a c t i on , i f s uc h a fi nd i ng i s po s s i bl e
. To 26 the e xtent the Distri ct Co urt n ee ds to re op en the rec ord in o rder to reso lv e th is am

b ig u ity , it m ay

d o so , sin ce C arp en ter’s statu te o f l i m i t a t i o n s d e f

e n s e m a k e s th e d a t e o n w h i c h th e E PA c om pl e t e d i t s r e m ova l a c t i on apot e nt i a l l y c l a i m -d ispos i t i ve f act. 27T he t w o ot her exce pt i ons t o t he t hr ee- y ear stat u te of 28 l i m i t at i ons ar e of no pr act i ca l ef fe ct

. T he fi r s t exce pt i on, t he “s ubs equ en t act i on” exc ept i on, i s s i m pl y not appl i cabl e. T hat exce pt i on pert ains t o s i t uat i ons i n w hi ch t he EP A has br ought
m or e t han one l egal act i on ( and her e t he t er m “ac t i on” i s bei ng us ed as a s y nony m for “l aw s ui t ”) agai ns t t he pl ai nt i ffs t o r ecove r cost s. T he st at ute pr ov i des t hat i f t he E P A ’s sui t i s a “su b seq u en t acti o n ” to re co v er f u rt h er resp o n se c o sts ( i. e., there h as a lr ea d y b ee n an “ in iti al ac ti o n ” to re co v er resp o n se c o sts) , th e su it m u st be c o m m e n c e d n o late r t h a n 3 y e a rs a f ter th e d a te o f c o m p le tio n o f th e in itia l a c tio n
. See 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 9 6 1 3 (g)(2 ). A “s ubs equent ” su it for fur t her r es pons e cos t s can “ be
m ai ntai ned at any t i m e du ri ng t he res po nse act i on , bu t [i t ] m ust be comm ence d no l at er t han 3 y ear s aft er t he dat e of c om pl et i on of t he r es pons e ac t i on. ” I d. § 9613( g) ( 2) ( B )

. T he pl ai nt i ffs ar gue t hat t he E PA ’ s 2001 s ui t w as a t i m el y s ubs equent act i on, beca us e t he t hr ee- y ear l i m i t at ion s p er i od appl i es onl y t o t he E PA ’ s ini t i al act i on, w hi ch t hey i dent i fy as t he EP A ’ s J une 2, 2 0 0 0 su it ag ains t C y tec, Fo rd, a n d S P S to en fo rce the O U -1 C ons ent D ecr ee. A ppel l ees cont end t hat “[i ] t do es n o t m at t er t h a t Ca r p e n t e r was n o t a d e f e n d a n t i n t h e 2 0 0 0 EPA a c t i on” beca us e t he s t a t ut e do e s no t i nd i c a t e t ha t t he de fe nd a nt must have be en a pa r t y t o t he i ni t i al act i on. ( A ppel l ees ’ A ns
. B r
. at 23

. ) Tha t a r gu ment fa i l s
. The EPA s ue d Cy t e c , For d, a nd SPS 25 iii. T h e E xcep tio n s to th e T

h r ee-Y ea r Sta tu te of Li mi tat i ons Pe r i od
A s th e D istrict C o u rt rig h tly reco g n ized , th e E P A ’s su it to re cover past

cost s c ou ld st il l be t im el y ev en if the e ar li er Nove m be r 18, 1998 da t e i s c or

r e c t , a s s um i ng tha t

an e xc e pt i on to the s tatute of

li m it at ions applie s. Th ou gh ther e are thre e e xc e pt i ons ge ne r ally

a va i l abl e , the onl y

one pos s i bl y

of co n se que nc e i s found i n 42 U. S. C. § 9613( g) ( 2) ( B) , whi c h is the one the Di s tr i c t

Court a ppl i e d. 28i n 2000, but not C ar pent er
. T hus , t he onl y par t i es agai ns t w hi ch t he EP A br ought a s ubs equent act i on i n 2 0 0 1 are C y t ec, For d, a n d S P S . A s a re su lt, th e “ s u b s e q u e n t ac tio n ” e x c e p tio n is in a p p lic a b le h e re
. See U ni t ed St at es v. N

avi s t ar I nt ’ lTrans

p. , 152 F. 3d 702, 710 ( 7 th C ir

. 1998) ( “W e bel i eve t hat , fr om t he l anguage and s t r uct ur e of t he s t at ut e, a ‘ s ubs equent act i on .
. . for f u r t h e r r e s p o n s e c os t s ’ mus t b e o n e b r o u g h t a g a i n s t t h e s a me par t y or par t i es agai ns t w hi ch an ‘ i ni t i al act i on’ t o r ecove r s uch co sts ha s b ee n m aintaine d

. ” (q u o ti n g 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 9 6 1 3 (g)(2 )). ). T he s econd exce pt i on i s an al t er nat i ve l i m i t at i ons per i od t hat m ay w el l be appl i cabl e her e. T hat exce pt i on s t at es t hat wh e n t h e EP A g r a n t s a c o n s i s t e n c y wa i v e r u n d e r § 1 0 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( C) t o ex t end t he rem ov al act i on , t he l i m i t at i on s peri od i s si x y ears , r at her t han t hr ee y ear s , fr om t he dat e of a det er m i nat i on t o gr ant th a t w a iv e r. See 42 U

. S. C

. § 9613( g) ( 2) ( A )

. I n ot her w or ds , t he E PA m us t br i ng i t s s ui t w i t hi n s i x y ear s of t he grant of a c o n sis ten c y w a iv e r, re g a rd les s o f w h e n it s re m o v a l ac tio n is compl et ed. T he par t i es have not defi ned t he t er m “cons i s t ency w a i ve r , ” but publ i c l y a va i l a bl e i nf or mat i on fr om t he EPA i ndi cat es t hat a consist encyw ai ver “i s an exe m pt i on t o t he s t at ut or y l i m i t s of t w o m i l l i on dol l ar s i n expendi t ur es
. . . for
r emoval act i ons
. ” M emora ndum fr om L on B i as co, O n- Scene Co o r d i n a t o r wi t h t h e U. S

. E n v t l

. P r o t

. Ag e n c y , t o M y r o n O. K n u d so n , R e g io n 6 S u p e rf u n d d iv isio n D ir. o f

th e U .S . E n v tl. P r o t . A g ency , 9, ht t p: / / w w w
. epa. gov/ r eg i o n 6 / 6 s f / l o u i s i a n a / a g

_ s t r e e t / i m por t ant _document s / act i on_m emo_agst r eet

. pdf. T he EP A per for m ed a 1992 r emoval act i on at t he Si t e pur s uant t o a cons i s t encyw ai ver it h ad g ran ted o n S ep tem b er 4 , 1 9 9 2

. U n d er § 1 1 3 (g )(2 )(A ), t hen, t he EP A had t o fi l e i t s s ui t t o r ecove r t hos e cos t s no l at er than S ep tem b er 4 , 1 9 9 8 , six y ea rs f rom the g ran t of

the w aive r. C a rp e n ter a rg u e s th a t s in c e th e E P A d id n o t f ile th e O U -2 su it unt i l aft er 1998, t he s ui t i s barr ed under t he “c ons i s t ency w ai ver ” exc ept i on. H ow ever , C ar pent er conce des t hat t he 26E P A ’s 1 9 9 2 c o n sis ten c y w a iv e r o n ly a p p lied to o n e s p e c if ic
r emedi al act i on, w hi ch cos t $4. 3 m i l l i on. A l l of t he E PA ’ s ot her cos t s ar e not s ubj ec t t o t he “c ons i s t encyw ai ver ” exc ept i on. Pl ai nt i ffs and C ar pent er ackno w ledge t hat t he EP A i ncur r ed cos t s on t he orde r of $14 m i l l i on and onl y s ought r ei m bur s ement for $7. 4 m i l l i on. T hus , even a cce pt i ng C arpent er ’ s ar gum ent t hat $4. 3 m i l l i on of t he EP A ’ s pas t cos t s ar e ti m e-b arr ed, t he E P A s t i l l has cl ai m s for appr oxi m at el y $10 m i l l i on w hi ch ar e not t i m e- bar r ed under t he consi s t encyw ai ver exce pt i on. T h e re f o re , th e E P A ’s $ 7 .4 m illio n c la im re m a in s re c o v e ra b le

. R em ov al act i on s ar e def i ned as 29

t he cl eanup or r emoval of r el eas ed haz ar dous s ubs t ance s fr om t he envi r onm ent , s uch ac t i ons as m ay be neces s ar y t aken i n t he eve nt of t he t hr eat of r e l e a s e o f

h a z a r d o u s s u b s t a n c e s i n t o t he e n v iro n m e n t, su c h a c tio n s a s m a y b e n e c e ss a ry to m oni t or , as s es s , and eval uat e t he r el eas e or t hr eat of r el eas e of ha zar dous s ubs t ance s , t he di s pos al of
r emoved m at er i al , or t he t aki n g o f s uch ot her act i ons as m ay be nec es s ar y t o pr event , m i ni m i ze, o r m it igate d am ag e to the p u b li c h ea lt h o r w elfa re o r t o th e e n v iro n m e n t, w h ich m a y o th e rw ise re su lt fro m a re lease o r t h rea t of release

. T h e term i ncl udes , i n addi t i on, w i t hout b eing l i m i t ed t o,

27 Se c t i on 9613( g) ( 2) ( B) s t a t e s tha t r e m ova l c os t s m ay be reco v eredas p art o f

a rem ed ial actio n su it, w h ich ef f ectiv ely e xt e nds the s t a t

ut e of l i m i t a t i ons t o s i x y e ar s fr om the i ni t i a t i on of phy s i c a l on- s i t e c ons tr uc t i on of the r e m e di a l a c t i on. Howe ve r , t o r e c ove r

s uc h c os t s , the r e m e di a l a c t i on s ui t m us t be init iate d w it

hin three y ears afte r the com plet ion of the re m ov al action. I

d. I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e l i m i t a t i ons 29securi t y fenc i ng or ot her m easures t o li m i t access, p rov isi o n o f a lt ern ati v e w ater su p p li es, t em p o rary e v a c u a tio n a n d h o u sin g o f th re a ten e d in d iv id u a ls not ot herw i s e pr ovi ded for , act i on t aken unde r s ect i on 9604( b) of t hi s t i t l e, and anyemer gency as s i stan ce w hi ch may be pr ovi ded under t he D i s as t er R el i ef a nd E m er gencyA ssis t ance A ct [42 U

. S. C

. § 5121 et

s eq. ].
4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 1 (2 3 ).
R emedi al act i ons ar e def i ned as

t hos e ac t i ons cons i s t ent w i t h per m anent r emedy t aken i ns t ead of or i n addi t i on t o r emoval act i ons i n t he event of a r el eas e or t hr eat ened r el eas e of a h a z a rd o u s s u b sta n c e in to th e e n v iro n m e n t, t o pr event or m i ni m i ze t he r el eas e of haza r dous subst ances so that t hey do no t m i gra t e t o cau se su b sta n tial d a n g e r to p re se n t o r f u tu re p u b lic h ea lt h o r w e lf

are o r t h e e n v ir o n m en t. T h e term i ncl udes , but i s not l i m i t ed t o, s uch ac t i ons at t he lo c a tio n o f

th e r e le a se a s s to ra g e , co n f in e m e n t, per i m et er pr ot ect i on us i ng di kes , t r ench es, or di t ches , cl ay cover , neut r al i zat i on, cl eanup of
r e l e a s e d h a z a r d o u s s u b s t a n c e s a n d a s s o c i a t ed cont ami nat ed mat er i al s , r ecy cl i ng or r euse, di ver s i on, d es t r uct i on, s egr egat i on of r eac t i ve w as t es , d redgi ng or exca vat i ons , r epai r or r e p l a c e me n t o f

l e a k i n g c o n t a i n e r s , c o l l e c t i o n of l eac hat e and r unoff, ons i t e t r eat m ent or i nci ner at i on, pr ovisi on of al t er nat i ve w at er s uppl i es , and anym oni t or i ng r eas onabl y r equi r ed to a ss u re th a t su c h a c tio n s p ro tec t th e p u b lic

28h ea lt h an d w elfa re an d the en v ir o n m en t. T h e term i nclud es t he cos t s of per m anent r el ocat i on of
r es i dent s and bus i nes s es and comm uni t y fac i l i t i es w h e re th e P re sid e n t d e ter m in e s th a t, alo n e o r in combi nat i on w i t h ot her m eas ur es , s uch r el ocat i on is m o re c o st-e f

f e c tiv e th a n a n d e n v iro n m e n tally p ref erabl e t o t he t r ans por t at i on, s t or age, t r eat m en t , des t r uct i on, or s ecur e di s pos i t i on off si t e of hazardo us subst ances, or m ay other w i se be nec es s ar y t o pr ot ect t he publ i c hea l t h or
w el far e; t he t erm i ncl udes offs i t e t r ans por t and o ff sit e sto rag e, t rea tm en t, d estruc ti o n , o r se cu re di s p o s i t i o n o f h a z a r d o u s s u b s t ance s and associ at ed co ntam i nated m at eri al s.
I d. § 9 6 0 1 (24 ). 29 peri od m ay be exte nd ed if the EPA atte m pts t o rec ov er

re m ov al cost s during a re m edia l a ct ion suit, rath er than in a re m ov al actio n su it. S

ee id

. But , i f the EPA s e e ks t o do s o, i t m us t br i ng tha t r e m e di a l a c t i on s ui t “ wi thi n 6 y e ar s a ft e r [the ] i ni t i a t i on of ph y si ca l on-si te constr

ucti on of the r em edia l a ct ion,” and the r e m e di a l a c t i on m

us t be ini t i a t e d wi thi n thr e e y e ar s a ft e r the co m p letio n o f th e rem o v al actio n
. Id

. Gi ve n the l angua ge of § 9613( g) ( 2) ( B) , we r e a d the r e qui r e m e nt tha t r e m e di a l a c t i on (i .e ., re m edia l work at the si te ) be “ init iate d” within thre e y ears of c om pl e t i on of the r e m ova l a c t i on ( i

. e ., rem o va l wor k a t the s i t e ) t o m e an tha t the phy s i c a l on- s i t e c ons tr uc t i on of the r e me d i a l a c t i o n h a s t o b e i n i t i a t e dw i th i n th a t th r e e - y e ar

t i me peri od . As Car

penter no te s, any

other i nter

pr et at io n of

that lang uage wo uld cre at e two diff er ent m eaning s of the wo rd “in i t i ate” in § 9 6 1 3 (g )(2 )(B ), an d , m o re im p o rtan tly w o u ld e vi s c e r a te th e thr e e - y e ar s t a t ut e of l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od forT he text of the rel evan t provis i on i s as fol l ow s: 30

A n i ni t i al act i on for r ecove r y of cos t s
. . . m us t be comm ence d .

. . ( B ) for a r emedi al act i on, w i t hi n 6 y e a r s a f

ter in iti a tio n o f

p h y sic a l o n -site c o n stru c tio n o f th e re m e d ial a c tio n , ex c e p t th a t, i f t he r emedi al act i on i s i ni t i at ed w i t hi n 3 y ear s aft er th e c o m p letio n o f

th e re m o v a l ac tio n , co sts i ncur r ed i n t he r emoval act i on m ay be r ecove r ed in th e c o st re c o v e ry a c tio n b r o u g h t u n d e r th is s u b p a ra g ra p h

. 42 U

. S. C

. § 9613( g) ( 2)

. W hen t he dr aft er s fi r s t us ed a f or m of t he w or d “i ni t i at e” i n this s ect i on, i t i s s peci fi ed as bei ng t he “i ni t i at i on of phy s i cal on- s it e cons t r uct i on of t he r emedi al act i on. ” Thus, w hen t he w or d “i ni t i at e” i s us ed a s econd t i m e, i n t he ver y next s ent ence , w e r ead t he st at ut e t o agai n m ean t he “i ni t i at i on of phy s i cal on- s i t e co n s t r uct i on, ” r at her t han t he i n i tia tio n o f

s o m e o th e r e n v ir o n m e n ta l c le a n u p e n d e a v o r. As C arp en terp ersu asiv ely

arg u es, to readth e statu te o th erw ise u n d erm in es th e statu te o f lim itatio n s: If E P A co u ldu se th e six y ear lim itatio n p erio din § 113( g) ( 2) ( B) s i m

pl y by i n curr i ng any

ty pe of r e s p o n s e c o s t s
. . . a f

t e r i s s u an c e o f th e R OD, but be for e i ni t i a t i on of on- s i t e c ons tr uc t i on of the r e m e di a l a c t i on, the thr e e y e ar l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od f o r rem o v al actio n s w o u ld n ev er ap p ly at an y site at w h ich rem ed ial actio n o ccu rs. ( A p p ellan t’s R ep ly

B r. at 1 2 .) Th i s i s b e c a u s e , b y u s i n g t he defi ni t i on of “i ni t i at e” t hat t he pl ai nt i ffs s ugges t ( i

. e. , i ncur r i ng any t y pe of f

ur t her r es pons e cost s ) , t he E PA coul d s i m pl y t ake

30 re m ov al ac ti on s c on ta ined in §9 61 3(g)(2)(A). Th us, whether 30any one of a var i et y of l at er s t eps t hat i t coul d cl ai m cons t i t ut es t he comm ence m ent of a r emedi al act i on. 31 th e § 9 6 1 3 (g )(2 )(B ) ex cep tio n ap p lies in th e p resen t case is ag ain d ep en d en t up o n th e tim e th at th e E P A co m p letedits rem o v al w o rk

. Carpente r argues that the EP A c o m plet ed it s r em ov al actio n o n N o v em

b er 1 8 , 1 9 9 8 , w h en it issu edth e R O D , b ecau se c a s e l aw s upport s the i de atha t , for stat ut e of l i m i t a t i ons pu r po s e s , a r e m ov al ac t i on i s c om

pl e t e up on the i s s uanc e of a R O D . ( See A p p ellan t’s R ep ly B r. at 9 (citin g , in ter a lia , Kelley v. E. I

. DuPont de Ne mour

s & Co. , 17 F. 3d 836, 834- 44 (6 th Ci r
. 1995) )

. ) Pl a i nt i ffs , howe ve r , not e tha t i n the OU- 1 Cons e nt D ecree, f iledS ep tem

b er 2 8 , 2 0 0 0 , th e E P A statedth at it “c on du ct ed [a] r em ov al ac ti on at the Site beginn ing i n the y ear 1992 and c ont i nui ng t o the pr e s e nt

. . . . ” ( App. at 5 :A 2132, ¶ G.) Th us, say

the pla inti ff

s, the EPA has e ss enti al ly affirm ed tha t i t s r e m ova l a c t i on wa s ongoi ng a s of Se pt e m be r 28, 2000. Aga i n, a s wi th the e ffe c t of the thr e e - y e ar

s t a t ut e of li m it at ions, we cann ot te ll wh ether this exce ption app li es beca use the Distri ct

Co urt has no t m ad e a d ef init ive fac tual f in d in g a s t o whe n the EPA c om pl e t e d i t s r e m ova l a c t i on. T h u s, w e c a n n o t d eterm in e w h eth er th e E P A in itiatedo n -site ph y si ca l constr

ucti on of the re m edia l a ct ion w it hin three y ears o f th e co m p letio n o f its rem o v al actio n
. In sum , the EP A’ s lawsuit to re cover past

cost s was t i m e l y i f one of two c i r c um s t anc e s i s found t o e xi s t : e i the r the da t e or t i m e pe r i od tha t

the EPA c om

pl e t e d i t s r e m ova l a c t i on fe l l wi thi n thr e e y e ar s of the EPA’ s OU- 2 e nfor c e m e nt s ui t , or the EP A initi at ed on -s it e phy si ca l c on struct ion o f the re m edia l ac ti on within thre e y ears of the c om plet ion o f its re m ov al ac ti on . I f th e fir st

of thes e r equire m ents is m et , the suit was32 t i m e l y unde r the thr e e - y e ar

s t a t ut e of l i m i t a t i ons
. I f the s e c ond is m et, th e six -y ear statu te o f lim itatio n s ex cep tio n co n tain edin § 1 1 3 ( g ) ( 2 ) ( b ) w o u l da

p p l y, a l l o w i n g th e f

i l i n g t o b e t i m e l y.
D

. T I a n d A g ere’s § 1 0 7 (

a ) C la im s to R eco ver Co sts Pai d t o Ot

he r Plai nt i f f s Pur s uant t o Se t t l e me nt A g reem en ts i

. Bac k

gr ound Ag er e was no t a

party to ei th er the OU-1 o r the OU -2 C o n sen t D ecrees. H o w ev er, A g ere en teredin to a p riv ate se tt le m ent a gree m ent with the plai ntiffs w h o si gn ed the OU-1 C o n sen t D ecree an da seco n dp riv ate settlem en t ag reem en t w ith the pl a i nt i ffs who s i gne d the OU- 2 Cons e nt De c r e e
. Pur s uant to th o se ag reem en ts, A g ere co n trib u ted to g ro up tru st acco u n ts th at f u n d edth e w o rkasso ciatedw ith th e co n sen t d ecrees. A g ere’s to tal co sts f

r o m co n trib u tin g to b o th tru st acco u n ts w ere f o u n dto b e $ 9 0 2 ,1 5 2 .4 9

. A lth o u g h T I w as a p arty to th e O U -2 C o n sen t D ecree, it wa s no t aparty to the OU

- 1 C on s e nt

De c r e e
. Ho we ve r , TI e nt e r e d i nt o a

pr i vate s e t t l e m e nt

a gr e e m e nt

wi th the pl a i nt i ff

s wh o d id si gn the OU-1 C on se nt D ec re e, and, pu rs uant to that agre em ent, TI contri bu te d to a grou p trust ac coun t t hat fun ded th e w o rkreq u iredb y

th e O U -1 C o n sen t D ecree. T I’s to tal co sts fr om c ontr i but i ng t o the OU- 1 gr oup tr us t a c c ount we r e found to b e $ 3 0 8 ,9 6 1 .3 7

. In thei r fifth am ended com plai nt, Agere and T I a ss erte d § 1 0 7 (a) co st reco v ery

claim s f o r th e am o u n ts th at th ey h adp aid p u rsu an t to th eir settlem en t ag reem en ts w ith th e o th er p lain tif f s, and the Di s tr i c t

Court he l d tha t Age r e and T I di d i nde e d ha ve such cl ai m s. O n ap peal , Car penter ar gu es that

the Dis tr ic tPl ai nt i ffs ar gue t h at C arp ent er w ai ved t hi s ar gum ent by 31 fai l i ng t o r a i s e i t b e f

o r e t h e Di s t r i c t Cou r t

. Ev e n i f Ca r p e n t er h a d n o t r a is e d th e iss u e b e lo w , the D istric t C o u rt ru led o n it
w h e n it h e ld th a t A g e re a n d T I h a d § 1 0 7 (a ) c laim s f o r c o sts t h ey had con t ri bu t ed v i a t he p ri vate s et t l em ent agr eem ents

. M o r e t o t h e p o i n t , t h o u g h , Ca r p e n t e r a d e q u a t e l y p r e s e r ved t he i s s ue w hen i t ar gued, in it s r epl y t o t he pl ai nt i ffs ’ pr opos ed f in d in g s o f f

a c t a n d c o n c lu sio n s o f

law , tha t A g e re a n d T I c o u ld
n o t b ri n g th o s e § 1 0 7 (a ) c la im s
. 33 Court e rr e d i n tha t

c onc l us i on and tha t

Age r e a nd TI s houl d be b arredf ro m reco v erin g th o se su m s. 31
ii. Se c t i on 10 7(

a) Co s t Re c ov e r yCl ai ms The c os t r e c ove ry

a va i l abl e unde r

§ 107( a ) i s founde d on the s t a t ut ory l angua ge pr ovi d in g tha t PRPs s ha l l be l i abl e for “a n y other nec es sary

cost s of res po nse i ncurred by any other pers on ” consis te nt with CE RC LA . 42 U .S.C. § 96 07 (a )( 4)(B). T h e S u p rem e C o u rt h as h eldth at “§ 1 0 7 (a) p erm its a P R P to reco v er o n l y

th e co sts it h as ‘in cu rred ’ in clean in g up a site.” At l

. Res e ar c h Cor

p. , 551 U. S

. at 1 3 9 ( quot i ng 42 U. S. C. § 9 6 0 7 (a)(4 )(B )). T h e C o u rt h as f u rth er e x p l a i n edth at, “[w] hen a p arty pay s to sati sfy a settl em ent agreem ent or a court ju d g ment, i t does not incur i ts ow n costs of re spon se . Rather, it reim b u rses o th er p arties f

o r co sts th at th o se p arties in cu rred .” I d.
A g ere an dT I are seek in g to reco up co sts th at each p aid pu r s uant t o p r i vat e s e t t l e m e nt

a gr e e m e nt s wi th othe r

pl a i nt i ff s

–T I w ith reg ard to th e O U -1 C o n sen t D ecree an dA g ere w ith reg ardto b o th O U -1 an dO U -2 C o n sen t D ecrees. T h eir pay m ents un der the privat e s ettl em ent a gree m ents were c om bi ne d i nt o gr oup tru st ac c ount s wi th m one y pa i d by the sig n ato ries to th e co n sen t d ecrees, an dth o se g ro up tru st34 a c c ount s we r e the n us e d t o fund the OU- 1 and OU- 2 w ork. Car pe nt e r ar gue s tha t, in m a ki ng thos e pay m e nt s i nt o gr oup tr us t a c c ount s , Age r e and TI di d not “ i nc ur ” the i r

own c os t s of r e s pons e
. I ns t e ad , s ay s Car pe nt e r , Age r e and TI pa i d i nt o the g ro up tru st acco u n ts o n ly to “satisf y a settlem en t ag reem en t,” and, pur s uant

t o Atlantic Rese arch , thos e pay m e nt s c annot

be consider ed “c osts incurr ed,” as re qu ir ed un der § 10 7(a)

. W e di s a gr e e and wi l l a ffi rm the Di s tr i c t Court in a l l owi ng Age r e and TI t o pur s ue § 107( a ) c l a i m s f or the a m ount s the y

ha ve co n tribut e d t o tr

us t a c c ount s fundi ng the OU -1 and O U-2 w ork. We do no t t h in k the Su prem e Cou rt inte nd ed to deprive the wo rd “i ncurred” of it s o rd in ar y m e ani ng. Age r e and TI put the i r m one y i n the pot r i ght a l ong wi t h th e m o n e y f

r o m th e s i g n e r s o f th e c o n s e n t d e c r e e s
. The co sts t h e y p a i df

o r w ere in cu rredat th e sam e tim e as th e co sts i n c u rr e db y

th e s i g n e r s o f th e c o n s e n t d e c r e e s a n df o r th e s a me w o rk . T h o se co s t s w e r e in cu rredin th e o rd in ary sen se th at a bill on e obligat es o n se lf

to pay com es du e a s a

jo b g et s don e. W hi l e the Supr e m e Court i n At lant i c Res e ar c h did h old that § 1 0 7 (a) p erm its a P R P to reco v er o n ly co sts it h as “in cu rred ,” and di d s ugge s t

th at c os t s pa i d pur s uant t o as e t t l e m e nt agr e e m e nt

a r e not s uc h c os t s , thos e s t a t e m e nt s we r e not m a de i n the c ont e xt

of pa y m e nt s m a de for

on- goi ng wor

k.
Mor e ove r , the Court a

ppe ar s t o ha ve m a de i t s s t a t e m e nt abou t t he un avai la

bili ty of § 107 (a ) r el ie f o n the as sum ption that “a P R P th at p ay s m o n ey to satisf y a settl e me n t a g reem en t ... m ay pu rs ue a § 113 (f) c on tr ibution.” I d. In o th er w o rd s, w h ile the Court i ndi c a t e d tha t

part i e s s e e ki ng r e i m

bur s e m e nt

for settl e men t p ay

m en ts d o n o t h av e a § 1 0 7 (a) claim , a b asic pr e m i s e of that ho l di ng wa s that tho s e part i e s do have a§ 1 13 ( f) c o ntr i but i on c l a i m

for the i r s e t t l e m e nt

a m ount s
. W e do not be l i e ve tha t

the Court

i nt e nde d i t s hol din g t o r e a c h a c i r c um s t anc e l i ke thi s , wh e r e Ag e r e and TI do no t have § 1 13 ( f) co n trib u tio n claims f

o rth e settlem en t su m s b ecau se th o se35 part i e s we r e ne ve r

the m s e l ve s s ue d f

o r th os e a m ount s by

the E P A o r b y

o th er P R P s. See Coo

per I ndus., Inc. , 5 4 3 U.S. at 1 6 8 ( e x p l a i n i n g th a t § 1 1 3 ( f ) a u th o r i z e s c o n tr i b u t i o n c l a i ms on ly fo r P R P s wh o h ave been subject t o a ci vil a ct ion u nd er C E R C L A ).
I f we we r e t o hol d tha t

Age r e a nd T I cannot

pur s ue § 107( a ) c l a i m s for

the i r s e t t l e m e nt

pay m e nt s , the y

woul d be com plet el y barr ed fromre coveri ng those am ou nts und er CE RC LA . To acc ept that outcom e, on e m ust i m agin e that Congr e s s i nt e nde d t o pe nali z e c oope r a t i ve c l e anup e ffort s by e xc l udi ng fr om CERCLA’ s br oa d r e c ove ry pr ovi s i ons a l l PRPs who, l i ke Age r e and TI , a gr e e t o c om e forwa r d an d as s i s t i n a clean up ev en th o u g h th ey h av e n o t b een sub

j ected t o a co st r e cove ry s ui t

. Suc h an i nt e nt

i s e xtr e m e l y

unl i ke l y , s i nc e the goa l of CERCLA i s “ t o e nc our a ge pr i va t e part i e s t o a s s um e the financia l r esp o n sibili ty

of cl eanu p b y

al lowing them

to se ek re covery from others .” Key Tron ic Co rp. v . Unite d S tates , 511 U .S

. 8 0 9 , 8 1 9 n .1 3 (1 9 9 4 ); s e e al s o W

. R. Grac e & Co. v
. Zotos Int’ l, Inc. , 5 5 9 F .3d 8 5, 88 (2d C ir . 200 9) (“ [I]t has now been ove r tw en ty - fi ve y e ar s s i nc e CERCLA’ s e na c tm e nt , and al thou gh m a

ny of t he pr ov i s i on s r em ai n p er

plexing, the s tatute ’s p r i mary p u rp o ses are ax io m atic: (1 ) to en co u rag e th e tim ely c l e anup of ha z ar dous wa s t e s i t e s ; and ( 2) t o pl a c [e ] the c os t of tha t [c l e anup] on thos e r e s pons i bl e for c r e a t i ng or

m a i nt a i ni ng the ha z ar dous c ondi t i on. ” ( a l t e r a t i ons i n o rigi na l ) ( c i t a t i ons o m itted ) (in tern al q u o tatio n s o m itted )).
W he n a c om

pany i n the pos i t i on of Age r e and TI ha s not y e t b e e n s u e db y

th e E P A b u t

a p p r e c i a t e s th a t

i t b e ar s s o me r e s pons i bi l i ty for c l e a ni ng up ha z ar dous wa s t e , the l angua ge of CERCLA, whi c h i s i n ten d e d t o e nc our a ge c l e anup, ought not be inte rpre te d to d is courage part ic ipatio n in cl eanu p if a m ore consis te nt constr

ucti on of the s tatute is plausi ble. Privat e a ct ors ar e not li kely

to se tt le and ste p f

orward u n le ss th ey

kn ow that the y c an s e e k s om e of the a m ount s the y wi l l c ontr i but e , jus t

l i keW e r ecogni ze t hat t he O U

- 2 C ons ent D ecr ee i ncl uded a 32 l um p pay m en t of

$7. 4 m i l l i on i n “pas t cos t s ” t o t he EP A , and th a t A g e re a c c e p ted re sp o n sib ili ty f o r th is a m o u n t a s w e ll. Speci fi cal l y , A ger e’ s s har e for t hes e pas t cos t s w as $83, 000. W hi l e t hi s s peci fi c amount coul d ar guabl y be cons i der ed rei m bu rs em ent r at hert hen co-fun ding, t he p art i es do n ot address t hi s i s s ue expl i ci t l y
. Par t i cul ar l y , i n l i ght of t he pol i cy r eas ons out l i ned above , how ever , w e ar e cont ent t o gi ve t he bene fi t of 36 thos e who ha ve be e n s ue d by the EPA or aPRP, or

thos e who vol unt ar il y

c l e an up as i t e i n the fi r s t i ns t anc e
. To e nc our a ge part i c i pa t i on i n e nvi r onm e nt a l c l e anup, the s t atut e s houl d be re ad in a way

that as sure s PRP s l ike Agere and TI that they can late r bring a § 1 07 (a ) c ost r ec ov er y cl ai m fo r the am ou nts t

hey p ay to h elp w ith th e clean up , ev en if th o se co sts are relatedto a settlem en t o b lig atio n
. C f. S tev en P atrick , Supe r

f und: Se c ond C ircu it S a ys E P A S ettlem en t A

p p ro va l Is U

n n ecessa ry to Tr i gge r Contr i but i on Ri

ght , 41 Da i l y Envt l

. Re p. ( BNA) A- 10 (Mar . 4, 2 01 0) (c it ing a D epartm ent o f Justi ce am ic us brie f f il ed i n Ni agara Mohawk

Pwr

. Cor p. , s t a tin g tha t

“ [i ]t i s i m port ant th at P R P s ... th at ... en g ag e in resp o n se activ ities in settlem en ts wi th s t a t e s ha ve a

ppr opr i a t e CERCLA c l a i m s for c ontr i but i on ag ain st o th er P R P s [ b ecau se o ] th erw ise P R P s w ill d e c lin e to e nt e r i n t o a d m i n i s tr a t i v e s e t t l e m e n t s an di n s t e a dw a i t f o r the fi l i n g o f civ i l a c t i ons t o e ns ur e the y c an s ue for

c ontr i but i on unde r Se ctio n 113( f) ( 1)

. ” )

. Our hol di ng i s but tr e s s e d by the Su prem e Cou rt ’s desc ri ptio n o f § 10 7(a) and § 11 3(f) as “o v erlap p in g ” rem ed ies. Atl. Rese arch Cor p. , 551 U. S. a t

139 n.6. It wo uld b e a

stre tc h to d es cr ibe the re m edie s a s “overl apping ” i f they

ar e act uall y inte nd ed to excl ud e an entir e g ro up o f P R P s f ro m b o th rem ed ies. Accordingly , we a ff

ir m the D is tr ic t C ou rt ’s ho lding that TI ( wi th r e gar d t o OU- 1) and Age r e ( wi th r e gar d t o OU- 1 and O U -2 ) h av e § 1 0 7 (a) co st reco v ery claim s to reco up co sts p aid 32t he doubt t o A ger e and bel i eve t hat i t i s ent i t l ed t o r ecove r t hat a m o u n t. 37 for c l e anup work, e ve n though the pay m e nt s we r e m a de pur s uant t o se t t l e m e nt

a gr e e m e nt s
. Thos e c l a i m s m ay thus go f o rw ardo n rem an d

. E

. The Di

s tr i c t Cour t ’ s Equi tabl e Al l oc at i on f

or t he Plai nt i f f s ’ Cos t s of Perf ormi ng W

or k Unde r t he OU -1 an d O U-2 Con se nt Decr ees i

. Bac k

gr ound
The Di s tr i c t

Court c onc l ude d tha t

Cy t e c , For d, a nd SPS ha d both § 107( a ) and § 113( f) c laim s f o r the c os t s of pe r form i n g work pur s uant t o the OU- 1 and OU- 2 Cons e nt Decr ee s, and that TI had such cl ai m s w it h re spec t t o the OU -2 Cons e n t D e c r e e
. C ar

p e n t e r a r g u e s th a t

th o s e p l a i n t i f

f s ha ve § 113( f) c l a i m s onl y , for

the c os t s the y

i nc urr e d pe r form i ng the work r e q ui r e d by

the c ons e nt

de c r e e s
. The y

do not ha ve § 107 (a ) cl ai m s, Carpente r say s, beca use on ce a party

has bee n su edo r h as settledu n d er C E R C L A its so le av en u e o f relief is a § 1 1 3 (f ) claim

. ii. S ectio n s 1 0 7 (

a ) a n d 1 1 3 ( f)
The Supr e m e Court , i n Atlantic Rese arch , l e ft ope n the p r e c i s e q u e s t i o n r a i s e db y C ar p e n t e r ’ s a r g u m e n t , n a m e l y, wh e the r pl a i nt i ff s i n the po s i t i on of

Cy t e c, Fo r d, SP S, andTI c an br i ng a§107( a ) c l a i m i n a ddi t i on t o a§ 113( f) c l a i m
. The Court s a i d,
W e do not

s ugge s t tha t §§ 107( a ) ( 4) ( B) and 11 3( f) have no ov e r l a

p at a l l

. Fo r inst anc e , we re cogn iz e that a

PR P m ay su st ai n exp ense s38 p u rsu an t to a co n sen t d ecree f o llo w in g a su it un der .

.. § 1 07 (a ). In such a ca se , th e P RP do es n o t in cu r co sts v o lu n tarily b u t d o es n o t reim b u rse the c os t s of a nothe r

party
. W e do not

de c i de wh ether these com

pell ed cost s of res po nse are r e c ove r abl e unde r

§ 113( f) , § 107( a ) , or

both. Fo r our pu rposes , i t s uf

fice s t o d em on strate that c os t s i nc urr e d vol unt ar i l y ar e r e c ove r abl e onl y by wa y o f § 1 0 7( a ) ( 4) ( B) , a nd c os t s of r e i m bur s e m e nt

t o anothe r

pe r s on p u rsua nt

t o a leg al j u d g m en t o r settlem en t are reco v erab le o n ly un de r § 11 3(f). Thu s, at a m inim

um , nei ther rem ed y sw allo w s th e o th er ... . Id. (citatio n s o m itted ); see a lso K ey T ro n ic Co rp
. 51 1 U

. S. at 81 6 ( st at ing t

hat the prov is ions prov ide “ si m il ar and som ewhat ove r l a ppi ng r e m e d[i e s ]” )

. Cl a i m s by Cy t e c , For d, and SPS for co sts o f p erf o rm in g th e O U -1 an dO U -2 w o r k , an dT I’s co sts a s s oc i at e d wi th OU- 2, fa l l i nt o the r e gi on of doubt i de nt i fi e d by the Supr e m e Court

i n Atlantic Rese arch . The cost s wer e nei ther

“ i nc urr e d vol unt ar i l y , ” be c aus e the part i e s we r e i n fa c t s ue d by th e E P A , n o r w ere th ey “reim b u rsed to an o th er p arty ,” b ecau se they were expend ed in perform ing the OU -1 and O U-2 w ork di r e c t l y
. Ra the r , the y

ar e c os t s i nc urr e d pur s uant t o ac ons e nt d ecree f o llo w in g a C E R C L A su it. See W .R. Grace & Co. , 559 F .3 dat 9 3 n .7 (“A s th e S u p r e me C o u rt su g g ested , it m ay w ell b e th at aparty

who s us t a i ns e xpe ns e s pur s uant t o ac ons e nt de c r e e fol l owi ng a s ui t unde r [CERCLA] m ay ha ve ac aus e of ac ti on un der e it

her s ec ti on 11 3(f), s ec ti on 10 7(a) , or both.”)

. The Di s tr i c t

Court c o rr e c t l y r e c ogni z e d tha t

the c l a i m s of Cy te c, Fo rd, S P S , an d T I a ss ociate d w it h the consent decr ee s fall within an “open q uestion o f law.” (App . at 1:A59 ). W i tho ut e xp l anat i on , the Co ur

t c on c l ud e d that

tho s e pl a i nt i ff

s have bo th § 113 (f) and § 10 7(a) cl ai m s. Th us, while it appearsW e r ead t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s opi ni on as pr ocee di ng under 33 § 113( f) for t he fol l ow i ng r eas ons
. Fi r s t , t he C our t s ai d as m uch
w h e n i t h e l d t h a t “ c o o p e r a t i o n wi t h t h e g o v e r n me n t i s a l s o an app ropri at e equ i t able fact or t o c o nsi der i n all ocati ng res po nse cos t s under § 113( f)

. ” ( A pp. at 1: A 73. ) Second, t he C our t s pent t w o pages of i t s opini on ou t l i ning t he elem ents a plai nti ff m ust pr ove u n d e r § 1 1 3 ( f

) , a n d t h e n o r g a n i z e d i t s a n a l y s i s b a s e d on th o se e lem e n ts. A n d , third , the C o u rt h e ld th a t “[ c ]u lp a b ili ty is an ap propri at e equ i t able fact or in res olvi ng con t ri bu t i on cl ai m s” (A p p . a t 1 :A 7 2 ), w h ic h , b y u s e o f t h e w o rd “ c o n tr ib u tio n ,” su g g ests that the D ist ri ct C o u rt all o ca ted li ab il it y u n d er § 1 1 3 (f). In a d d iti o n , d e sp it e a rg u in g th a t th e y h a v e § 1 0 7 (a ) c laim s in addi t i on t o t hei r § 113( f) cl ai m s , t he pl ai nt i ffs conce de t hat “t he D i s t r i ct C our t det erm ined t he s har es of ea ch par t y w i t hout re g a rd to th o s e § 1 0 7 (a ) c la im s .” (A p p e lle e s ’ A n s . B r. a t 4 7 .) 39 that the Co ur t we nt on t o a l l oc a t e l i abi l i ty un de r § 1 13 ( f) , we

33 ar e s quar e l y c onfr ont e d wi th the i s s ue l e ft ope n i n A tla n tic Rese arch : wh e the r , i n a dd i t i on t o § 11 3( f) c l a i m s , pl a i nt i ff s such as th es e have §10 7(a) cl ai m s for expenses s usta ined p u rsu an t to a co n sen t d ecree f o llo w in g a C E R C L A su it. T h is i s n o t simp ly

am a t t e r of a c a de m i c i nt e r e s t

. W e r e we t o fi nd that the s e part i e s have § 1 07 ( a ) c l a i m s i n a dd i t i on t o § 11 3( f) claim s, th e D istrict C o u rt co u ld , o n rem an d , d ecid e to allo cate l i abi l i ty unde r § 107( a ) and pot e nt i ally im pos e 100 pe r c e nt

of the l ia bili ty on C ar penter pu rs uant to the joint and sever al li abil it y avai la ble un der that prov is ion of the st at ute. Fo r that re as on , the part ie s have heavi ly brie fed and vigo rously

ar gu ed the i ss ue.
I n Atlantic Rese arch , imm ed iately af ter settin g f

o rth th is u n an sw eredq u estio n , an daf ter su g g estin g th at th ere is, in f act, s o me “ o v e r l a

p ” b e tw e e n § 1 0 7 ( a ) an d§ 1 1 3 ( f ) , th e S up r e me Court s t a t e d tha t

“ ade fe ndant PRP i n s uc h a§ 107( a ) [joi nt and s e ve r a l l i abi l i ty ] s ui t c oul d bl unt any i ne qui t abl e di s tr i but i on of40 c os t s by fi l i ng a§ 113( f) c ount e r c l a i m
. ” 551 U. S. a t 140. The C o u rt ex p lain edth at an y f ear th at “P R P s w ill esch ew eq u itab le appo rt ionm ent und er

§ 1 13 (f) i n f

av o r o f jo int a nd se vera l l i abi l i ty un de r § 1 07 ( a ) ” i s m i t i gat e d by the fa c t that “ a§ 1 13 ( f) c ount e r c l a i m

woul d ne c e s s i t a t e the e qui t abl e a pport i onm e nt

of c os t s a m ong the l i abl e part i e s , i nc l udi ng the PRP tha t fi l e d the § 1 07 (a ) a ction.” I

d. at 13 8, 40 . Unf

ortunate ly , the po te ntia l fo r an inequ it able re sult re m ai ns in this ca se beca use Car penter w o u ld n o t b e ab le to b rin g a § 1 1 3 (f ) co u n tercl a i m ag ain st C y tec, F o rd , S P S , an d T I. S ectio n 1 1 3 (f )(2 ) w o u ldp rev en t it. T h at sub sectio n states th a t “[ a] p erso n w h o h as reso lv edits l i abi l i ty t o the Uni t e d S tates or

aSt a t e i n an a dm i ni s tr a t i ve or judi c i a l l y a ppr ove d s e t t l e m e nt

s ha l l not be l i abl e for c l a i m s for c ontr i but i on r e gar di ng m a t t e r s a ddr e s s e d i n the s e t t l e m e nt

. ” 42 U. S. C. § 9613( f) ( 2)

. Thus , i f we a l l owe d Cy t e c , For d, SPS, or TI to bring a § 1 07 (a ) c la im here and ass ert joint and sever al li abil it y a ga i ns t Carpente r, Carpente r wou ld be barr ed fromthen b rin g in g a co n trib u tio n co u n terclaim ag ain st th em

b ecau se th o se p lain tif

f s h av e en teredin to co n sen t d ecrees, i.e., j u d icially a pp r ov e d s e t t l e m e nt s wi th t he EP A. As ar e s ul t , tho s e pl a i nt i ff s w o u ldb e ab le to reco v er 1 0 0 p ercen t o f th eir o w n co sts ag ain st C arp en ter, ev en t

hough t he y t hem selv es are actu ally

resp o n sib le f o r, an d h av e stip u latedth at th ey are resp o n sib le f

o r, a sig n if ican t p o rtio n o f

th e co n tam in atio n at th e B o arh eadS ite. As Carpente r s umm ar iz ed it, “ [P la inti ff s who had e nt e r e d i nt o c ons e nt

decrees wi th the EPA] woul d not be sub j ect to eq u itab le allo catio n . T h ey w o u ldh av e n o liab ility b ecau se t h e y

w o u ldb e ab le to assert j o in t an dsev eral liab ility ag ain st th e o th er p arties.” (O ral A rg u m en t T r. at 9 -1 0 .) T h is is ape rve r s e r e s ul t , s i nc e a pr i m ary goa l of CERCLA i s t o m a ke po ll uter s pay . I nd ee d, the Sup re m e Cou rt expres se d con ce rn about thi s ve ry ty pe of r e s ul t

whe n i t recogni z e d tha t , wi thout d e f e n d an t s h a v i n g th e a v a i l ab i l i ty o f a§ 1 1 3 ( f

) c o u n t e r c l a i m, P R P p lain tif

f s m ig h t “ e s ch ew eq u itab le ap p o rtio n m en t ... in favo r of j oint and sever al li abil it y u n d er § 1 07 (a ). ” A tl.41 Res e ar c h Cor

p. , 551 U.S. at 13 8. Th e Cou rt ’s explanat ion that the har s h n e s s of joi nt

and s e ve r a l l i abi l i ty

i s m i t i ga t e d by

the p o ssib ility

o f a § 1 1 3 (f

) co u n ter c laim

is o f n o co m f

o rt to d ef en d an ts lik e C arp en ter.
Fu rther, even un der j oint and se vera l l ia bili ty , a dist ri ct c ou rt i s no t s up po s e d t o f

a s hi on an awar d that

a l l ow s apl a i nt i ff t o r e c ove r fr om

ade fe ndant

c os t s a s s oc i a t e d wi th the c l e anup of w aste th at th e p lain tif

f itse l f h as co n trib u tedto th e site. See T HE U NI F OR M C OM PARATI VE F AU L T A CT § 2 cmt. [h er ei nafter

“ U. C. F. A. ”] ( i ndi c a t i ng tha t e ve n whe n i m

pos i ng joi nt

and s e ve r a l l i abi l i ty , c ourt s m us t ne ve rthe l e s s “ s e t

forth .

. . the equita ble sh ar e of the tota l obligat ion to the cl ai m ant for eac h p arty , b asedo n h is e s t a b lish edp ercen tag e o f f au lt ... [ so th at] ea ch party

shou ld eventual ly be re spon si ble for [that am ou nt] as a resu lt o f

th e ru les o f

co n trib u tio n .”). T h at is to say , w h ile j o i n t a n d s e v e r a l l i ab i l i ty

a l l o w s ap l a i n t i f

f t o c o l l e c t

f r o m a si ng le defend ant the coll ec ti ve li abil it y of al l d efendants, it

do es n o t p erm it a p lain tif

f to reco v er f

ro m a d ef en d an t th e co sts to u n d o w h at th e p lain tif

f itself h as d o n e. Y et th is is p recisely wha t woul d oc c ur

i f Car pe nt e r we r e b arred fr om

br i ngi ng a c ontr i but i on c ount e r c l a i m a gai ns t the pl a i nt i ffs a ft e r

the plai ntiffs re covered from Carpente r und er

jo int and se vera l l i ab i l i ty. Th us, w e hold that pla inti ff s i n the po si ti on of

Cy te c, F o rd , S P S , a n dT I, w h o if p erm ittedto b rin g a § 1 0 7 (a) claim wo uld b e s hiel ded f

rom contri bu ti on coun te rc la im s und er § 11 3(f)(2), do no t have any § 1 07 (a ) c la im s for cost s i ncurred p u rsu an t t o c o n sen t d ecrees in a C E R C L A su it. C f. N ia g a ra M o hawk Pwr

. Cor p. , 2010 W L 626064, a t *8 ( hol di ng th at a PR P w ho had settl ed it s C ER CL A lia bili ty by consent order w ith a state en v iro n m en tal ag en cy h ada § 1 1 3 (f

)(3 )(B ) claim but not a § 107( a ) c l a i m , and s ayi ng, “ [c ]l e ar l y , the two s e c t i ons have diff er ing r es tr ic ti on s and d ifferent pu rposes .” ). We need not de c i de the c ont ou rs o f the ove r l a p pos t ul a t e d i n A tla n tic42 Res e ar c h be c aus e , r e gar dl e s s of wh e the r § 1 07 ( a ) a nd§ 1 13 ( f) re m edie s overl ap at

al l, they cann ot prop er ly

be se en to ov er la

p h ere. iii. The Di s tr i c t Cour t ’ s Equi tabl e Al l oc at i on U n d er § 1 1 3 ( f)
A s d isc u ssedab o v e, C y

tec, F o rd , an dS P S , h av e o n ly § 113( f) c l a i m s for

c os t s the y

i nc urr e d pur s uant

t o the OU- 1 and O U -2 C o n sen t D ecrees, an dT I is in th e sam e p o sitio n w ith its O U

- 2 c o s t s
. B e c au s e th e D i s tr i c t C o u r tr e s o l v e dth o s e c l a i ms unde r § 113( f) “ by

de t e rm i ni ng the e qui t abl e s hare s of [a l l of the part ie s]” (App

. at 1:A6 1), we m ust now addres s the Co urt’ s allo catio n o f

clean up co sts.
Th e pla inti ff

s c on ce de that

they had t o “ pu t on evidence su f f ici e n t f o r th e D istrict C o u rt to d eterm in e w h ich eq u itab le f acto rs w ere ap p ro p riate an d to ap p ly th o se f acto rs to th e f

acts to d eterm in e e ach p arty ’s sh are.” (A p p ellees’ A n s. B r. at 3 8 .) A t tr i a l , th e “ [ p ] l a i n t i f

f s ’ th e o ry o f th e c a s e w a s th a t

th e v o l u me o f each p arty ’s w a s te d isp o sedo f at th e S ite w as th e m o st approp ri at e e qu it able fact or fo r a ll ocat ion.” ( I d. ) The Distri ct C o u rt ad o p ted th at th eo ry , h o ld in g th at th e “[ v ] o lu m e o f w aste d isp o sedat th e S ite i s th e m o st eq u itab le m an n er o f co st al locati on and the Co urt i s no t hes it ant t o u se this as it s pri m ar y eq u itab le f

acto r.” (A p p . at 1 :A 7 0 -A 7 1 .) T h e C o u rt f u rth er h eld tha t , “ be c aus e c ul pabi l i ty and c oope r a t i on ar e s i gni fi c ant eq ui t abl e c ons i de r a t i ons , the y wi l l be c ons i de r e d i n the al locati on equati on .” (App . at 1:A71 .)
On a ppe a l , Car

pe nt e r ar gue s tha t

th e onl y e vi de nc e the p lain tif f s in tro du cedas to th e v o lu me o f w aste attrib u tab le to part i e s othe r

than NRM an d C ar

pe nt e r c ons i s t e d of the fol l owi ng thr e e s t i pul a t i ons : ( 1) the June 19, 2008 s t i pul a t i on a m ong a l l of the part i e s a s t o the wa s t e tha t DCC c ol l e c t e d fr om fi ft e e n of the de fe nda nt s ( not i nc l udi ng Car

pe nt e r ’ s , NRM’ s , orD es pi t e t he pl ai nt iffs’ ar gum ent t o t he cont r ar y , C ar pent er 34 pr es er ved t hi s ar gum ent at t r i al

. D ur i ng t r i al , w hen t he pl ai nt i ffs
m oved t o admi t t he J une 23 s t i pul ati o n i nt o evi dence , rd C ar pent er obj ect ed by r emi ndi ng t he C our t t hat i t had not j oi ned in th e stip u latio n . In re sp o n se , the p lain tiff s’ c o u n se l sta ted to t he C our t , “Y our honor , w e’ r e not as ki ng D efe ndant C ar pent er t o s t i pul at e t o any of t hes e fa ct s
. ” ( A pp. at 3: A 1198. ) C ar pent er t hen r es ponded, “That ’ s fi ne so l ong as i t i s not a s t i pul at i on among al l of t he par t i es r el at i ng t o t he dr aw i ng of w as t e t hat w as haul ed by [D C C ] fr om t he s ame com pany
. ” ( I d. ) M o reo v er, w hen t he C our t confi r m ed t hat i t w as “a s t i pul at i on o f li m i t ed s cope w hi ch does n ’t inv o lve [ C arp en ter], ” C arp en ter resp onded,

“ [ W ]e ’re ju st m a k in g a re c o rd th a t w e d o n o t a g re e o r stip u late or w e’ r e not w ai vi ng any ki nd o f o b j ect i on .
. . . ” ( A pp. at 3: A 1199. ) T he C our t t hen aske d t he pl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el w het her he t hought C ar pent er had “w ai ved anyobj ect i on, ” t o w hi ch t he pl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el r es ponded, “N o y our H onor
. ” ( I d. ) F i n a l l y, at or al ar gum ent befor e us , t he pl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el conce ded t hat “C ar pent er chos e not t o agr ee” w i t h t he s t i pul at i on, and t hat C arp en ter ha d v o iced it s o b jecti o n at tri al. (O ral A rgu m en t T r. a t 2 8 .) T h e iss u e w a s th u s a m p ly p re se rv e d in th e D istric t C o u rt. 43 H& H ’ s w a s t e v o l u m e s ) ; ( 2 ) th e Ju n e 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 s t i p u l a t i on betwee n the plai ntiffs and H&H (that Carpente r did not si gn ) a s t o the vol um e of wa s t e tha t DCC c ol l e c t e d fr om

pl a i nt i ffs For d, Cy t e c , and SPS, and fr om

form e r de fe ndant

H& H; and ( 3) the Jul y 1, 2008 s t i pul a t i on be twe e n the pl a i nt i ff s, C ar pe nt e r , and H& H, s t i pul a t i ng t o the fa c t tha t the wa s t e de s c r i be d i n the June 23 st ipulat ion w as CE RC LA hazardou s was te . Car penter rd as se rt s that the June 23 “s ti pu lati on is no t c om pete nt evidence rd of the vo l um e s of

wa s t e that DC C a c qu i r e d fr om [the ] p l a i nt i ff

s an d[ f ro m ] H &H , b ecau se C arp en ter, th e o n ly p arty ag ain st w h o m it [ is] b ein g u sed , d idn o t stip u late to th o se v o lu m es.” 34 ( Appe l l ant ’ s Op. Br

. a t

43. ) Thus , the ar gum e nt ru n s, “if y ou do n’t have the plai ntiffs’ volum e .
.. y ou do n’t kno w the t otal44 vol um e a t

thi s s i t e
. I f y ou don’ t

know the t ot a l vol um e a t the s i t e , y ou c an’ t

a l l oc a t e be twe e n a l l the part i e s
. ” ( Or a l Ar gum e nt Tr. at 17.)
Th e pla inti ff

s, in re spon se , argue th at th ey of fered s uffi c i e nt e vi de nc e for

the Court

t o de t e rm i n e th e vol um e of w aste th at each p arty

lef t at th e s i t e s i n ce th ey

“o f f er[ ed ] in to ev id en ce th e stip u latio n s o f all p arties to th e v o lu m es o f w aste haul e d by

DCC fr om

e a c h [p]l a i nt if

f and e a c h [d]e fe ndant (other than Carpente r and NR M)

.. . . ” ( Ap pell ee ’s An s. Br. at 39 .) Th e pla inti ff

s c on te nd that

they “thu s h ad o n ly

to of fer a ddi t i ona l e vi de nc e s uffi c i e nt for the D i s t r i c t C o ur t t o d e t e rm i ne the volum es of

Carpente r and NR M w as te th at were disposed o f at th e S ite, th ereb y f

in d in g all o f

th e f acts n ecessary

to ap p ly it s pri m ar y equita ble fac tor [i. e. , was te vo lum e].” ( I d. at 4 0 .) Spe c i fi c a l l y , the pl a i nt i ffs ar gue that “ [a ]l l of the s e s t i pul a t i ons we r e pr ope r l y

a dm i t t e d i n to the r e c or d, whe the r or not C arp en ter w as a

n or ig in al sig n ato ry

to th e Ju n e 2 3 stip u latio n .” rd ( Id . at 42-43 n.14 .)
For c e d t o c onfr ont

the fact tha t

Car pe nt e r di d not s i gn the June 23, 2008 s t i pul a t i on, and thus ne ve r s t i pul a t e d t o the p lainti ff s’ and H &H’s wast e volum es , the plai ntiffs advance th e f o llo w in g th eo ry

o n ap p eal:
Pl a i nt i ffs and H& H s t i pul a t e d on June 23, 2008 as to th e n at u r e a n dv o lu m e o f H &H w aste di s po s e d o f a t the Si t e andthe vo l um e s of wa s t e [] of Plai ntiffs that

were hauled by

DC C. Th en Pl a i nt i ffs , H& H, and Car pe n ter e nt e r e d i nt o a Jul y 1, 2008 s t i pul a t i on c larif y i ng tha t the June 23 s t i pul a t i on wa s i nt e nde d ( by r e f er e nc i ng no rd vol um e s for

TI and Ag ere) t o i nc l ude the conclusi on that

no wast e from

TI and A gere was hauled by DC C, and that the wast es o f the other th re e Pl a i nt i ffs r e fe r e nc e d i n the June 23 rdA f ter o ra l ar g u m e n t, t h e p lain tiff s’ c o u n se l se n t a le tter to 35
our C our t pur s uant t o Fed. R

. A pp. P. 28( j ) t o addr es s w hat he des cr i bed as a “mi s s t at ement dur i ng or al ar gum ent

. . . t hat A ppel l ees di d not i nt r oduce e vi dence at t r i al conce r ni ng t he
v o lum es o f C y tec ’s, S P S ’s, an d F o rd’s w astes tha t w ere di s pos ed of a t t he B oar head Far m s Super fund Si t e. ” Let t er fr om G l enn A

. H ar r i s , C ouns el for Pl ai nt i ffs , t o M ar ci a M

. W al dr on, C ler k o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f o r th e T h ird C irc u it ( D ec. 18, 2009) ( on fi l e w i t h t he C our t )

. Speci fi cal l y , t he p lain tiff s’ c o u n se l p o in ts to se v e ra l ex h ib its m o v e d in to e vi de nc e a t t r i a l , i nc l ud i ng pu r c ha s e or de r s fr om For d a nd SPS to D C C , D C C in v o ice s to F o rd a n d S P S , an d f ili n g s m a d e w ith t he N ew Jer s ey D epar t m ent of Envi r onm ent al Pr ot ect i on t hat evi dence cer t ai n vol um es of C y tec’s w as t e di s pos ed of a t t he S ite

. ( I d. ) T h e p lain tiff

s’ p o sitio n is t h a t “ [ t]h e e x h ib its a re in th e tr ia l r e c o rd a n d th u s c a n b e re lie d u p o n ” b y o u r C o u rt . ( I d. )
H ow ever , even i f w e w er e t o cons i der t hos e e x h i bi t s , t hey ar e not evi dence of t he pl ai nt i ffs ’ w as t e vol um es t r ans por t ed by D C C t o t he B oar head Si t e dur i ng t he r el evant t i m e per i od. T hey ap p ea r t o b e o n ly a c o ll ec ti o n o f in v o ices a n d p u rch ase o rde rs w it h n o test im o n y to ex p lai n w h a t t h ey m ea n
. M o reo v er, pl ai nt i ffs have not d ir ec t ed us t o any t hi ng i ndi cat i ng t hat t hey a rg u e d a t trial th a t th o se d o c u m e n ts w e re e v id e n c e o f th e ir w a ste vol um es
. I n fac t , i n t he pl ai nt i ffs ’ r epl y t o C ar pent er ’ s pr opos ed
45 s t i pul a t i on .
. . c ont a i n e d CERCLA ha z ar dous sub stan ces. By ex ec uting the se cond [ Ju ly1 ]

st s t i pulat i on, Car

pe nt e r al s o j oi ne d i n t

he f i r s t one a s w ell. ” (I d

. ( i n t e rn a l c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. ) The plai ntiffs thus ar gu e that, beca use the July

1 st ipulat ion refers st to th e Ju n e 2 3 stip u latio n , th e later o n e w as “in ten d ed ” to rd incorporat e the earl ie r. ( I d. ) 35fi ndi ngs of fac t , t hey s t at ed t hat t he vol um e evi den ce for pl ai nt i ffs and H & H came fr om t he s t i pul at i ons
. T he D i s t r i ct C ou rt ’s op i nion reveal s t hat t he C ou rt rel i e d sol el y on t ho se stip u la ti o n s to m a k e f

in d in g s o f

f a c t as to th e p lain tiff

s’ w a ste vol um es and di d not r el y on t he evi dence di s cus s ed i n t he r ece nt 2 8 (j ) l e tte r t o o u r C o u rt

. 46 Th e Dis tr ic t Cou rt

ac ce pted that theory , s tati ng that

“ [a ]l though Car

pe nt e r di d not en ter i nt o [the June 23 rd stip u latio n ] , it is n o n eth eless ev id en ce o f p lain tif f s v o lu m etric sh ar e s
. ” ( App. a t 1: A71 n. 43. ) Fr om the Court ’ s opi ni on, it appears that

the s ti pu lati o n s w er e the on ly evidence t

he Co urt co n sid eredw ith reg ard to th e p lain tif f s’ an dH &H ’s w aste. A ll o th er v o lu m e ev id en ce d iscu ssed b y th e D istrict C o u rt relates to C arp en ter’s o r N R M ’s w aste.

i v. The J

une 23 St i

pulat i on i

s N o t an rd Admi s s i on t hat i s Admi s s i bl e Again st Ca rpente r The June 23 s t i pul a t i on i s the onl y one tha t i nc l ude d the rd pl a i nt i ffs ’ and H& H’ s vol um e s of wa s t e , and Car pe nt e r di d not s i gn i t. T he Jul y

1, 2008 s t i pul a t i on doe s not i nc or por a t e by ref eren ce th e Ju n e 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 stip u latio n , n o r d o es it ev en ad d ress th e v o lu m es o f w a s t e i n th e earlier stip u latio n . It read s, in re le vant part , that “ [ t]he wast e from Plai ntiff com

panies ref eren cedin p arag rap h 5 o f th e Ju n e 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 [ s] tip u latio n
... contai ned at l ea st

som e CER CL A h az ar do us substances . There w ere n o w a s t es h au ledb y [ D C C ] f ro m [ T I, A g ere,] o r th eir p red ecesso rs.” (A p p
. at 1 4 :A 6 3 9 8 .) Wh en p lain tif f s m o v edto ad m it th e Ju n e 2 3 stip u latio n at trial, C arp en ter p o in t e d ly rd obje c t e d, a s i t

ha d be for e , t o any

s ubs t ant i ve us e of the s t i pul a t i on, s t a t i ng “ [w]e ’ r e jus t m a ki ng a r e c or d tha t we do not ag ree o r stip u late o r w e’re n o t w aiv in g an y k in do f o b j ectio n to par a gr a ph 5 of [the June 23 ] s t i pul a t i on. ” ( App. a t 3: A1199; rd
s e e al s o s upra n o te 3 4 .)
It wo uld b e e xtra ordinary , i n lig ht of Carpente r’ s deci si on n o t t o sign the June 23 st ipulat ion and it s r epea te d rdT he argu m ent w ent as foll ow s: 36
Pl ai nt i ffs ’ C ouns el : [T]he s t i pul at i on i s admi t t ed i nt o evidenc e as pr oof a g a i n s t my c l i e n t o f

t he t hree e n tit i es’ vo l um es. T h e y c o u ld h a v e d isp u ted it. B ut i t s not t hat t her e’ s no evi dence

.

. . . The Cour t : Y ou r a r gu ment i s t his w as, i n eff ect , an admi s s i on.
P l a i n t i f f s ’ C o u n s e l : E x a c t l y.

47 an dem p h atic o b j ectio n s, to allo w th e u s e o f th e stip u latio n to bind it , and to perm it

the s ti pu lati on to b ec o m e e xact ly wh at C arp en ter h ad a rig h t to say it w as n o t, n am ely ev id en ce ag ain st it o f th e v o lu m es o f

w aste at issu e. T h e D i s trict C o u rt sh o u ld n o t ha ve de c i de d the pl a i nt i ffs ’ and H& H’ s vol um e of wa s te fr om as t i pul a t i on tha t

Car pe nt e r di d not joi n. Part i c ul ar l y

i n a c a s e l i ke thi s , whe r e the que s t i on i s who be ar s wha t s har e of the re spon si bili ty

am on g tho se wh o are cu lp ab le , i t i s no m er e t e c h n i c a l v i o l a t i o n o f

th e r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e t o a l l o w s o me part ie s to st ipulat e to thei r share of re spon si bili ty

and then lat er h av e th at stip u latio n b e u sedas th e b asis o f liab ility ag a i n st anothe r party
. No m a t t e r

how c ul pabl e apol l ut e r m ay be – and i n thi s i ns t anc e , Car

pe nt e r ga ve the Di s tr i c t Court a m pl e r e a s on t o vi e w i t a s hi ghl y c ul pabl e – l i abi l i ty c an onl y be a s s i gne d on th e b asis o f

p ro cedu res co n sisten t w ith th e D u e P ro cess C lau se of the Fi fth Am e ndm e nt

of the Uni t e d St a t e s Cons t i t ut i on and th e F ed eral Ru les o f

E v id en ce. C

f. D a wso n v. D ela w a re , 503 U .S . 1 5 9 , 1 7 8 (1 9 9 2 ) (“T h e D u e P ro cess C lau se ... trad itio n ally ha s r e gul a t e d que s t i ons about the i m pr ope r ad m iss i on of ev id en ce.”).
Be for e us , pl a i nt i ffs ’ c ouns e l ar gue d tha t the s t i pul a t i on was “properl y adm itte d i nto e vidence” beca use it consti tute s an a dm i s s i on by

the pl a i nt i ffs

. This, of c our s e , m i s a ppr e he nds 36. . . P l a i n t i f f s ’ C o u n s e l : T h a t ’ s e x a c t l y c o r r e c t

. We

a d mi t t e d a n d we s t i p u l a t ed
w ith [ H & H ] t h at t h o se a re t he vol um es for t hos e t hr ee c o m p a n ies

. . .. [ I]t w a s in e v id e n c e . T h e ju d g e u se d it. I m e a n h e c o u n te d o n it. L oo k on, l ook at t he op i nion. H e cou nts th o se vol um es agai ns t m e. (O ral A rgu m en t T r. at 23 -24

. ) 48 th e issu e en tirely . T h e q u estio n isn ’t w h eth er th e stip u latio n is an a d mi s s i o n b y

th e p l a i n t i f

f s an dth e r e f

o r e b i n d i n g a s t o th e m. The que s tio n i s whe the r

the pl a i nt i ffs ’ s e l f- s e rvi ng s t i pul a t i on can b in dC arp en ter.
Ta ki ng as t i pul a t i on tha t

aparty ha s c ho sen n ot

t o s i gn and u si ng it

as evidence a gain st

the non -s ignatory

violat es at least th e ru le ag ain st h earsay . In g en eral, h earsay “is a s t a t e m e nt , othe r

than one m a de by the de c l ar ant whi l e t e s t i fyi ng a t the tr i a l or

he ar i ng, offe r e d i n e vi de nc e t o pr ove the tr uth of the m atte r a ss erte d.” F ED
. R. E V ID
. 801( c )

. He ar s ay i s not a dm i s s i bl e unl e s s i t

fa l l s unde r

one of the e xc e pt i ons t o the h earsay ru le co n tain edin th e F ed eral Ru les o f E v id en ce. F ED
. R. E V ID
. 80 2. On e thing wh ic h the rules define as no n-hears ay i s an a dm i s s i on by

aparty - op po ne nt , de fi ne d a s a“ party ’ s ow n st at em ent, in ei ther

an individu a l or

r e pr e s e nt at i ve ca

paci ty” that is “o f f er e d ag ain st” th at p arty . F ED
. R. E V ID
. 80 1(d)(2)(A). Thus , whe the r

as t a t e m e nt

c ons t i t ut e s i na dm i s s i bl e he ar s ay , or is inst ea d co n si d er ed no t t o b e hears ay at al l bec ause it

is an a dm i s s i on of a party - oppone nt , de pe nds on both who m a de the s t a t e m e nt and whom i t i s be i ng offe r e d a ga i ns t

. He r e , whi l e the st ipulat io n mig h t wel l be a dm is si ble non -hears ay if it were be i ng offe r e d a ga i ns t

the par t ies w h o s i gne d i t , i t

s houl d not ha ve be e n a dm i t t e d a ga i ns t Car pe nt e r , s i nc e Car

pe nt e r di d not s i gn i t and no e xc e pt i on t o the he ar s ay r ul e wa s a dvanc e d by

theA lth o u g h n o e x c e p tio n to th e h e a rsa y ru le is im m e d iate ly 37 appar ent as bei ng appl i cabl e her e, w e do not deci de t hat none ap p li es to the Ju n e 2 3 sti p u lat ion , sinc e that issue is no t bef o re rd
us
. W e dec i de onl y t hat t he J une 23 s t i pul at i on w as not rd in c o rp o ra ted in to a n y stip u latio n C a rp e n ter d id sig n a n d th a t it i s not adm i ssi ble agai nst C arpent er as an a d m issi on becau se C a rp e n ter a d m itt e d n o th in g b y it. 49 p lain tif f s. Cf. Brzozowski

v. Co rr . Physi ci an Serv

s. , I nc. , 360 37 F .3 d1 7 3 , 1 7 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (cau tio n in g th at a p lain tif f co u ld no t rel y on ac on s e nt

ju dg m e nt

a ga i ns t aparty be c aus e that party di d not s i gn the “ s t i pul a t i on .
. . and m us t be a ffor de d the o p p o rtu n ity

to d ef en ditself ag ain st th e claim

d e n o v o .”).
Beca use the June 23 st ipulat ion sho uld n o t h ave been rd a dm i t t e d a ga i ns t

Car pe nt e r , the D istrict

Court di d not r e l y on co m p eten t e v i d en ce as to f

o u r o f th e p arties’ w aste v o lu m es. As a r es ult, Carpente r i s co rr ec t i n its as se rt ion that t he Co urt di d not art i c ul a t e an a de qua t e ba s i s for i t s de c i s i on a s to the t ot a l vo l um e of

wa s t e a t the Boarhe a d S i t e
. Th e pl a i nt i ff s concede, a s they

m ust, that it was their

bu rden to prov e e ac h party ’s “fai r shar e” or “s iz e of the pie. ” ( Oral Argu m ent Tr. at 24- 25. ) The y

di d not m e e t tha t bur de n, and, wi thout

am e nt i on of a ny othe r e vi de nc e of the m a t t e r s c ove r e d by the June 23 rd st ipulat ion, it

was i m po ss ible fo r the Distri ct Co urt t o p er fo rm an e qui t abl e a l l oc a t i on of wa s t e vol um e s a m ong Car pe nt e r and the othe r PRPs

. Thus, th e Di s tr i c t Court ’ s vol um e a l l oc a t i on co n stitu tes an ab u se o f

d iscretio n an dcan n o t stan d

.

v
. Other Evi dence Reg a rd in g Wa st e V olum es Th at conclusi on , how ever , does not end the m atte r. Whil e the stipulat ions ar e i nadm is si ble unles s a hear say ex ce ption app li es , there m ay well be other e vidence of record t h at co u ldb e d isp o sitiv e as to p lain tif f s’ an dH &H ’s w aste v o lu me s. Fo r e xam

ple, in a foo tnote, the Dis tr ic t Cou rt i ndi c a t e d tha t , be c aus e the pl a i nt i ffs s t a t e d the i r vol um e s of w aste an do th er p artie s ’ v o lu m es o f w aste in an sw ers to co n ten tio n in terro g ato ries, an db ecau se C arp en ter m o v edth o se answer s i nto e vidence, “these answer s corr ob orat e the volum esSee inf ra S e c tio n III.F .i. 38
A n adopt i ve admi s s i on r efe r s t o “evi dence of ot her conduct 39 of a pa r t y m ani fes t i ng ci r cumst ant i al l y t he par t y ’ s as s ent t o t he t r ut h of a s t at ement m ade byanot her

. ” 2 G EOR GE E. D IX , ET AL ., M C C OR MI C K O N E VI DEN C E § 2 6 1 (K e n n e th S . B ro u n , ed ., 6 th e d ., 2 0 0 9 ) [ h e re in a f

ter “ M c C o rm ick ” ]. A d o p tiv e a d m iss io n s in fede r al cour t s ar e gover ned by Fed era l R ul e of Evi dence 8 0 1 (d )(2 )(B ), w h ich p ro v id e s th a t a s tate m e n t is n o n -h e a rsa y if “[ t] h e statem en t i s o ff ere d ag ains t a pa rt y an d is .

. . (B ) a s t at ement of w h ich t he par t y has m ani fes t ed an a dopt i on or bel i ef i n i t s t r ut h. ” F ED

. R. E V ID

. 801( d) ( 2) ( B )

. H er e, C ar pent er not onl y ci t ed t o pl ai nt i ffs ’ r es po n ses t o cont ent i on i nt er r ogat or i es , but i t m oved t hos e res pons es i nt o evi dence , reli ed o n them , an d co n ti n u es to rely o n th e m o n a p p e al. In ot her w or ds , C ar pent er ur ged t he D i s t r i ct C our t – and now ur ges us – t o r el y on t hos e r es pons es as compet ent evi dence

. C a rp e n ter th u s m a y b e v iew e d a s s h o w in g its “ a ss e n t to th e tru th of a s t at ement m ade byanot her

. ” M C C ORMI CK , s upr a at § 261 ( expl ai ni ng t hat “t he i nt r oduct i on of evi dence by a par t y ” may cons t i t ut e a n ad o p ti v e a d m issi o n “d ep en d [in g ] up o n w h ethe r t he p a rticu lar c irc u m sta n c e s w a rra n t th e c o n c lu sio n th a t a d o p tio n in fa c t o c c u r r e d ” )

. Howev e r , we l e a v e t h a t d e t e r mi n a t i o n t o t he D i s t r i ct C our t i n t he fi r s t i ns t ance
. 50 of plai nt i ffs ’ wa s t e di s pos e d of a t the Si t e
. ” ( App. a t

1: A71 n .4 3 ; s e e a l

s o Ap p. at

14 :A64 16 -649 8; 64 85 .) Carpente r co n ced es th at it d id , in d eed , in tro du ce in to ev id en ce p lain tif f s’ resp o n ses to co n ten tio n in terro g ato ries. ( See A p p ellan t’s R ep ly B r. at 2 5 .) M o reo v er, in an o th er p art o f its arg u m en t – c oncerni ng a l l e ge d e rr or

by the Di s tr i c t

Court i n de t e rm i ni ng de fe ndant NRM’ s wa s t e vol um e s – Car pe nt er r e l i e d, and c on t i nu e s t o r e l y , on tho s e ve ry s a m e r e s po ns e s t o a r gu e i t s ow n p o in t. ( See A p p . at 1 :A 3 9 n .2 1 ; A p p ellan t’s R ep ly B r. at 2 5 .) 38 It thus m ay

be that the answ er s to contenti on inte rr og at orie s c ons t i t ut e a dm i s s i ons tha t

Car pe nt e r ha s a dopt e d. 39 The Di s tr i c t

Court , whi c h i s f

ar m o r e fa m i l i ar

wi th the co n tex t in w h ich C arp en ter m o v edto a d mit th o se resp o n ses, and the wa y s i n whi c h Car pe nt e r a r gue d the i r

r e l e vanc e , i s i n a b ett e r pos i t i on t o c ons i de r

tha t i s s ue
. The Cour

t m ay a l so51 deci de that , i n the u nu sual ci rc um st ance s of this c as e, the r ec ord wi l l ne e d t o be r e ope ne d t o c ons i de r the eq u itabl e a l l oc a t i on ag ain , an d , i n t h at co n tex t, it m ay rev iew an y

ad m issib le evidence a s t o the plai ntiffs’ and H&H’s w as te vo lum es . Since it m ay be neces sary

to re op en the r ec ord to ad d ress other qu es ti on s, li ke the ti m e peri od du ri ng wh ic h the EP A com plet ed it s r em ov al ac ti on , iss ues o f w as te vo lum es could b e a dd re ss ed at th e sam e tim e.
F

. Other Con te ntions R eg a rd in g th e D is tr ic t C

ou rt ’s Equi tabl e Al l oc at i on Carpente r c on te nd s th at , in additi on to the i m prop er a dm i s s i on of the June 23 s t i pul a t i on a s vol um e e vi de nc e for rd th e p lain tif

f s an dH &H , th e D istrict C o u rt erredin its eq u itab le al locati on anal y si s i n three other way s. Firs t, Carpente r argues that the Cou rt m is ca lc ulat ed the volum etri c share of wast e that f o rm er d ef en d an t N R M sen t to t h e B o a r h eadS ite. S eco n d , it arg u es th at th e D istrict C o u rt d id n o t co n sid er o th er d ef en d an ts’ c u l p ab i l i ty

an dl a c ko f

c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h t h e E P A t o th e s a me exte nt it consider ed Ca rpente r’ s behavior. Finall y , Car penter s ay s tha t , i n a l l oc a t i ng l i abi l i ty , the Court s hou ld ha ve c ons i de r e d the dol l ar a m ount s tha t the pl a i nt i ffs obt a i ne d fr om settlin g d ef

en d an ts, rath er th an th o se d ef en d an ts’ v o lu m etric shar e of w as te . Eac h o f tho se contenti on s i s unp er suas ive.

i

. N R M ’s Wa ste
Beca use the part ie s did no t s ti pu late to NR M’s w as te , the Court he ar d t e s t i m ony fr om s e ve r a l DCC dr i ve r s , a l l of whom we r e que s t i one d about tr ans port i ng NRM’ s wa s t e t o the Bo ar he a d S i t e
. Th e t e s t im on y

prod uced the following evidence. O n e d riv er p ick ed up w aste f ro m N R M b u t tran sp o rted all o f it to another l ocat ion, no t t he Bo ar head Site . A se cond driver never went t o N RM to pick up wast e. Tw o o ther driver s tr ansporte d all NR M w as te to a thir d locat ion, no t t he Bo ar head Site . Jun e Stephens, another driver , was un cl ear as to wh ether s he ha d dr i ve n a tr

uc k c ont a i ni ng NRM wa s t e , and, i f s he ha d, wh ether or no t she had dis po se d of that was te at the Boarhead Site . Final ly , a

driver nam ed Manf

re d (“Fre dd ie ”) DeRewal, Jr

.52 t e s t i fi e d that

he t ook s i x t o t e n tan k e r s of NRM wa s t e t o the Bo ar head si te , but took the re m ai nd er of NR M’s wast e to other lo catio n s.
B as ed on that

te st im on y , the Distri ct

Co urt fou nd that 32, 000 gallo n s of NRM’ s wa s t e wa s di s pos e d of a t the B o arh eadS ite. A cco rd in g to th e C o u rt,
Fr e ddi e De Re wa l t ook s i x t o t e n t anke r s of NRM w aste to th e [ S ite] ... . A s a ta n k er tru ckh eld ap p r oxi m a t e l y

4, 000 ga l l ons of wa s t e , DCC di s pos e d of be twe e n 24, 000 and 40, 000 ga l l ons of NRM wa s t e a t

the Si t e
. . . . The Court

fi nds tha t DCC di s pos e d of 32, 000 ga l l ons of NRM wa s t e a t the Si t e dur i ng the Ga

p Pe r i od. (App . at 1:A36 .) T h e D is tric t Cou rt thus chose the halfway po int i n the 24 ,000 and 4 0,00 0 g al lon range.
C arp en ter o f

f ers tw o sp ecif

ic co n ten tio n s w ith reg ardto the NRM w aste f

ig ur e
. Fi r s t , i t

ar gue s tha t

the pl a i nt i ffs ga ve m ore definit e figures in re spon se to contenti on inte rr og at orie s an dth at th e C o u rt sh o u ldh av e u sedth o se f ig u res. S eco n d , it ar gue s tha t

June St e phe ns ’ s t estim ony de m ons tr a t e s tha t

s he did, in fact , c olle ct

wast e f rom NR M. As to the fir st po int, ther e was n othi ng i m

pr ope r i n the Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s de c i s i on t o gi ve gr e a t e r w e i ght t o wi tne s s t e s t i m ony

than t o c ont e nt i on inte rr og at ory

answers. As to the s ec on d, Stephens st at ed ex p licitly th at, in steado f

th e w aste sh e co llectedb ein g N R M ’s, it “co u ldh av e b een [ w aste b elo n g in g to ] an o th er o n e o f th ese out fi t s
. ” ( App. a t

1 5 :A 8 7 8 .) Gi ve n the i nde c i s i ve ne s s of S tep h en s’s testim o n y , th e D istrict C o u r t d idn o t clearly err in i nt e r pr e t i ng he r t e s t i m ony the wa y tha t i t di d. Cons i de r i ng the t e s t i m ony be for e i t r e gar di ng the handl i ng of NRM’ s wa s t e , the Di s tr i c t Court c oul d pr ope r l y de t e rm i ne tha t 32, 000 ga l l ons of w aste w ere f

airly attrib u tab le to N R M

.53 ii. The Cul

pabi l i t yand Lac k

of Coope rat i on o f S ettlin g D efen d a n ts Th e Dis tr ic t Cou rt

concluded that, in additi on to vo lum e, c ul pabi l i ty and c oope r a t i on wi th the gove rnm e nt s houl d a l s o be co n sid eredin allo catin g resp o n se co sts. Beca u se “Car penter r e l i nqui s he d i t s pot e nt wa s t e a c i ds t o aknown pol l ut e r , ” ( App. a t 1: A72) , and be c aus e Car pe nt e r di d not c oope r a t e wi th the EP A, the Cou rt

deci ded to all ocat e t o C ar penter an additi on al 1 7 .4 % of the t ot a l c l e an- up c os t : 8. 7% for worki ng wi th a kn ow n p ol lute r and 8. 7% fo r no t c oo pe r a t i ng wi th the EP A. (App . at 1:A73 -A74 .)
Car pe nt e r doe s not di s put e the Di s tr i c t Court ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa c t c onc e rni ng i t s r e pe a t e d bus i ne s s de a l i ngs wi th DCC and r e l a t e d c om

pani e s or the r e fus a l t o part i c i pa t e i n c l e ani ng up the Bo ar head Site wh en as ked to d o so by the EPA . Rather, C arp en ter co n te n d s o n ap p eal th at th e D istrict C o u rt erredin ig n o rin g th e sam e k in do f ev id en ce w ith reg ard to o th er p arties.

We disa gree
. Th e Dis tr ic t Cou rt fo un d that Car

penter ’s culpab il it y

was of a diff

er ent c hara ct er

than any

other de fe ndant ’ s be c aus e Car pe nt e r ha d a c t ual knowl e dge of D eR ew al’s p o llu tin g activ ities an dy et tw ice ch o se to h ire h is c om pani e s t o di s pos e of t oxi c wa s t e
. Car pe nt e r i ntr oduc e d no e v i d e n c e d e mo n s tr a t i n g th a t an y o th e r p arty a c t e dw i th th e s a me ca ll ou s dis re gard as it

did in its deal ings with DeRewal’ s com panies or with the E PA

. Th e record reveal s that Car penter w as p articu larly

co n tem p tu o u s o f th e law an dp ub lic saf ety in the way it st on ewal le d p arti ci pati on in the gov ern m ent’ s c l e anup e ffort s a t the Boarhe a d Si t e
. The s e ar e va l i d ba s e s for v iew in g C arp en ter as o ccup yin g a categ o ry o f cu lp ab ility

all its o w n in th is case. T h u s, th e D istrict C o u rt’s d ecisio n to allo cate an a ddi t i ona l 17. 4% of l i abi l i ty t o Car pe nte r wa s c e rt a i nl y

not an abus e of di s c r e t i on, and the i nc r e a s e d l i ab ility ne e d not be r e vi s i t e d on r e m and.54 iii. S ettlem en t A m o u n ts The Di s tr i c t Court c hos e t o us e the wa s t e vol um e s of the settlin g d ef

en d an t s , rath er th an th e d o llar am o u n ts th at th o se settlin g d ef

en d an ts p aid , as th e p rim ary eq u itab le f

acto r f o r its a l l oc a t i on. The Di s tr i c t

Court e xpl a i ne d tha t

i t wa s a dopt i ng the U

. C

. F

. A

. t o d e t e rm i n e th e s e t t l i n g p art i e s ’ s h ar e s o f l i ab i l i ty. T h at A ct states th at “[ t] h e claim o f th e releasin g p erso n ag ain st o the r pe r s ons i s r e duc e d by

the r e l e a s e d pe r s on’ s e qui t ab le shar e of the ob li gati on
.. . . ” U.C.F.A. § 6. Th us, the Co urt c onc l ude d tha t , s i nc e i t h ad u sed wa s t e vol um e s t o de t e rm i ne the e qui t a

bl e s har e s of th e r e m a i ni ng PRPs , the s e t t l i ng defend ants ’ li abil it

y shou ld be “r educed by

the s ettl ing p arty ’s e qui t abl e sh are of the l i abi l i ty , not by the dol l ar

va l ue of the settl e m e nt

. ” ( App. a t

1: A71 n. 43. ) The Di s tr i c t Court ha d in fa c t he l d four y ears b e for e tr i a l tha t “ the l i a bi l i ty of the NonSett le rs [w il l be] dete rm in ed withou t r egar d to the do ll ar am o u n ts o f

p rev io u s settlem en ts.” (A p p . at 1 :A 8 5 .) Carpente r ar gu es that the Co urt er re d i n c on cl ud ing that the dol l ar va l ue of the s e t t l e m e nt s we r e not relev ant t o the eq u itab l e a l l oc a t i on. But the Di s tr i c t

Court di d not e rr
. Fi r s t, prac ti ca ll y

speaking , the se tt le ment am ou nts are no t of rec ord and so the Distri ct

Co urt c ou ld no t have use d the m as an e qui t abl e fa c t or
. Se c ond, a s the Di s tr ict Court not e d, the pla i nt i ffs ha ve e ve ry

i nc e nt i ve t o s e t t l e for

a s c l os e t o the s e t t l i ng part i e s ’ s har e s a s pos s i bl e be c aus e the pl a i nt i ffs be ar the r i s k tha t th os e part i e s ’ s har e s of the c l e anup c os t s m ay be gr e a t e r than the s e t t l e m e nt a m ount

. Thus , the vol um e a l l oc a t i on lik ely ref lects th e d o llar am o u n ts. F in ally , to th e ex ten t w aste vol um e s and s e t t l e m e nt

dol l ar s di ve r ge , i t

wa s we l l wi thi n the Co urt’ s dis cr et ion to d et er m ine that the fo rm er , which ar e hist oric al fact s developed before li ti gati on , are a bette r m ea sure of fa u l t th an th e l a t t e r , w h i c h ar e n e c e s s ar i l y c o l o r e dby litig atio n co n cern s. In sh o rt, w h ile th e D istrict C o u rtm u st re visi t ce rt ai n PRP s’ vo lum es fo r the re as on s desc ri bed abo ve, ther e w as no thing w rong with it s c ho osing to u se vo lum e, rather than the dol l ar

va l ue of the s e t t l e m e nt s , a s th e ba s i s for allo catin g liab ility

am o n g th e p arties.C a rp e n ter a lso a rg u e s th a t ev e n if th e p lain tiff

s c o u ld sta te 40
a § 7 0 2 (a ) c o st re c o v e ry c laim u n d e r th e H S C A , tha t cla im
w oul d be bar r ed by H SC A ’ s s t at ut e of l i m i t at i ons pr ovi s i on, contained i n 35 P A

. S TAT

. A NN

. § 6020. 1114. W e nee d not addr es s t hat conten ti on beca us e no s t at ut e of l i m i t at i ons a rg u m e n t h a s b e e n m a d e p e rta in in g to § 1 0 7 (a ). A ll t h e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s a rg u m e n ts th a t th e p a rties h a v e m a d e to u s p e rta in to § 1 1 3 (f

).
55 G

. Th e Pennsyl

vania H azardo us Sites Cle an up Act
La s t l y , Car

pe nt e r ar gue s tha t

pl a i nt i ffs Cy

t e c , For d, SPS, and T I do n ot have viable cost re covery cl ai m s und er

§ 7 02 (a ) of the HS CA fo r the sam e re as on s that they do no t have a § 10 7(a) cl ai m

un der CER CL A. Ne ither party disputes that l i abi l i ty unde r the HSCA m i rr or s l i abi l i ty unde r CERCLA and that § 7 02 ( a ) of

the HS CA m i rr or s § 1 07 ( a ) of CE RC LA

. R ath er, C arp en ter sim

p l y r e p eats its co n ten tio n s as to w h y it be l i e ve s the Di s tr i c t

Court e rr e d i n hol d in g tha t

Cy t e c , For d, SP S, and T I have § 10 7(a) clai m s for the c osts they incurr ed u n d er th e O U -1 an d/o r O U -2 C o n sen t D ecrees. Th e Dis tr ic t Cou rt

corr ec tl y h el d that Car penter ’s l i abi l i ty “ i s ne i the r

gr e a t e r nor l e s s e r unde r the HSCA. ” ( App. a t 1: A76. ) I nde e d, the c os t r e c ove ry

and c ontr i but i on pr ov i s i o n s i nHS CA ar e vi rt ua l l y i de nt i c a l t o tho s e i n C ER CL A. Co mp are 35 P A
. S T AT
. ANN
. § § 6 0 2 0 .7 0 2 (a)(3 ), 7 0 5 (a), wi t h 42 U. S. C. §§ 9607( a ) ( 4) ( B) , 9613( f)

. Thus , on rem and, the Di s tr i c t Court s houl d c ont i nue t o a ddr e s s th e CERCLA and H S C A i s s u e s i n th i s c a s e i d e n t i c a l l y. 40
I V . Conc l us i on We reco g n ize th e m an y d if f icu lties in h eren t in a djudi c a t i ng thi s hi ghl y

c om pl e x and c ont e nt i ous case and expres s a pp re ci at ion f

or the c lari ty w ith w hich the Dis tr ic t C o u rt set f

o rth its r e a s o n in g in sup p o rt o f th e eq u itab le al locati on it

dete rm ined. How ever , for the r ea sons disc usse d abov e, we m

ust vac at e the ju dg m ent and re m and the ca se
.A gai n ( see supra n. 12 ), w e no t e t hat t he D i st ri ct C ou rt m ust 41 det er m i ne on r emand w het her A ger e’ s cl ai m s ar e h eld by i t or by assi gn ees. 56 In summ ar

y , fir st , we a sk the D is tric t Cou rt to m ake a c l e ar and une qui voc a l fi ndi ng, i f pos s i bl e , a s t o whe n the EPA com plet ed it s r em ov al ac ti on . To the exte nt the Dis tr ic t Cou rt de c i de s i t m us t r e ope n the r e c or d i n or de r t o m a ke tha t

fi ndi ng, it m ay d o so . S u ch a f

i n d i n g w ill allo w th e D istrict C o u rt to de t e rm i ne w he the r

the EPA’ s De c e m

be r 6, 2001 fi l i ng of the s ui t t o e nfor c e the OU- 2 Cons e nt De c r e e wa s t i m e l y , and thus whe the r the r e i s at i m e - b ar t o pl a i nt i ffs ’ r e c ove r i ng the a ppr ox i m a t e l y

$ 7 m i l l i o n th e y

p a i dt o r e i m

b u r s e th e E P A for pa s t c os t s
. Furthe r , i f the Di s tr i c t Cou rt f in d s tha t the EPA i ni t i a t e d “ on- s i t e phy s i c a l c ons tr uc t i on” of the r e m e di a l a c t i on w ith in th ree y ears o f

th e co m p letio n o f its rem o v a l actio n , it m ay apply the s ix-y ea

r s t at ut e of l i m it at ions exce ption con ta ined in § 113 (g)( 2)(B). If the Distri ct Co urt find s that the E P A ’s De c e m be r 6, 2001 s ui t

wa s n o t tim e - barr e d, and tha t the p lain tif f s are ab le to reco v er f

o r p ast co sts, th e C o u rt sh o u ld m ak e a m o re ex act f

in d in g as th e am o u n t th at th e p lain tif f s p aid to reim b u rse th e E P A f

o r p ast co sts. Second , the Dis tr ic t Cou rt shou ld perm it

TI (with regard t o OU- 1) a nd Age r e ( wi th r e gar d t o O U -1 and OU- 2) t o go 41 f o rw ardw ith th eir § 1 0 7 (a) co st reco v ery claim s to reco up co sts paid as part

of the s hare d e xp ense of cl eaning up the Boarhea d S ite.
Th ir d, beca

use we hol d th at Cy

te c, Fo rd, and SP S, as we l l a s TI ( wi th r e gar d t o OU- 2) , ar e s hi e l de d fr om c ontr i but i on c ount e r c l a i m s unde r § 1 13( f) ( 2) and the r e for e do not ha ve § 1 0 7 ( a ) c l a i m s f

o r c o s t s i n c u rr e dp u r s u an t t o th e c o n s e nt decr ee s, the Dis tr ic t Cou rt sh o u ld agai n p roce ed sole ly un der § 1 1 3 (f ) as to th o se claim s.
F o u rth , w h ile p ro ceed in g u n d er § 1 1 3 (f ) to al l o c ate li abil it y am on g the part ie s, the D is tr ic t C ou rt m ay no t c on si der th e Ju n e 2 3 stip u latio n as ev id en ce ag ain st C arp en ter, at least

rd not wi thout a ddr e s s i ng the e vi de nt i ary pr obl e m s not e d he r e i n.57 Bey on d the st ipulat ion, ther e m ay be evidence in the re cord that the Di s tr i c t

Court c an r e l y on t o pe r form i t s e qui t abl e a l l oc a t i on, bu t t he Distri ct Co urt m ay al so re op en the rec ord if it dee m s that n e c e s s ary. Fo r the fo re go ing r ea sons, we vaca te the Dis tr ic t Cou rt ’s j u d g m en t an drem an df

o r f u rth er p ro ceed in g s co n sisten t w ith thi s opi ni on.