IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

United States of America, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) Case No. 06-CV-00354-PB 

vs. ) 

) Judge Paul J. Barbadoro 

General Electric Company, ) 

) 

 Defendant. ) 

STIPULATION AND ORDER

In a joint effort to further streamline this case, Plaintiff, the United States on behalf of 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), and Defendant, General Electric 

Company (“GE”) (together the “Parties”), hereby stipulate to the following: 

1. The United States alleges it has incurred $13,892,884.13 in response costs in connection 

with Operable Unit 1 (“OU1”) at the Fletcher’s Paint Works and Storage Facility 

Superfund Site in Milford, New Hampshire (the “Site”). See FLE_ICS000003, 

FLE_ICS000470. This amount was calculated through October 20, 2009, and includes 

interest. The United States alleges that these response costs were incurred in connection 

with the 1993 and 1995 removal actions, the 1998 Record of Decision (“ROD”) for OU1, the 

2009 Amended ROD for OU1, and enforcement costs. 

2. GE disputes the above-referenced allegations, including on the ground that a portion 

of the above costs are only attributable to Operable Unit 2 (“OU2”), and not OU1.

Case 1:06-cv-00354-PB Document 155 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 5
-2-

3. For purposes of this Stipulation, the Parties stipulate that $519,855.70, including certain 

direct and indirect costs, of the above $13,892,844.13 alleged costs were incurred in 

connection with OU2. (The underlying documents identifying these alleged costs are 

discussed in the supplemental expert report of Raymond Dovell, dated March 10, 2010). 

4. The United States disagrees with the conclusions and assumptions in Mr. Dovell’s 

supplemental report, but stipulates that it will not seek the $519,855.70 in alleged OU2 costs 

in this current litigation. The United States reserves its rights to pursue those costs at a 

later time. 

5. GE disagrees that the $519,855.70 in alleged OU2 costs are recoverable from GE, but 

stipulates that it will not challenge the United States’ attempt to pursue these alleged 

OU2 costs in any later proceeding on the grounds that such costs are OU1 costs, that 

such costs are not adequately documented, or that the United States should have pursued 

such alleged costs in this litigation. GE reserves its rights to challenge the recoverability 

of these costs on any other grounds. 

6. The recoverability of alleged interest on the $519,855.70 in alleged OU2 costs shall be 

accounted for in the following manner: Interest that has allegedly accrued on the 

$519,855.70 amounts to $153,368.87 as of October 20, 2009. Accordingly, on the date 

that the Court enters this Stipulation as an Order (or shortly thereafter), EPA will transfer 

the total amount of $673,224.57 ($519,855.70 plus $153,368.87) from the OU1 cost 

category to the OU2 cost category. Interest will thereafter accrue on the $673,224.57 at 

the same rate and in the same manner that it will accrue on all other OU2 costs as of 

October 21, 2009. The $673,224.57 will be deemed to have been incurred in the OU2 

cost category on October 21, 2009. 

Case 1:06-cv-00354-PB Document 155 Filed 07/09/10 Page 2 of 5
-3-

7. GE further disputes the allegations referenced in Paragraph 1, above, and argues that 

applicable statutes of limitations and related law allegedly bar the recovery of response 

costs incurred in connection with the 1993 and 1995 removal actions as set forth in Doc. 

No. 150 (“Timeliness Issue” regarding “Removal Action Costs”). The Parties stipulate 

that the Removal Action Costs total $1,305,921, exclusive of interest. The United States 

disagrees that any costs are barred by any statutes of limitations or related law. 

Accordingly, the Parties jointly request, and this Court rules, that the Timeliness Issue will 

be decided based upon GE’s motion for summary judgment, Doc. No. 150, with the 

opposition filed and the reply due according to the Amended Case Management Order 

dated December 2, 2009, with the additional opportunity for the United States to file a surreply one week later on July 16, 2010. (The United States’ motion for summary 

judgment, Doc. No. 149, and GE’s opposition to that motion, Doc. No. 151, are 

withdrawn). 

8. The Parties reserve their rights of appeal of any ruling on GE’s motion for summary 

judgment on timeliness, Doc. No. 150 (“GE’s Motion”), but stipulate that on appeal of any 

decision on GE’s Motion, or, if any issue regarding the Removal Action Costs is ever 

remanded to the District Court, the Parties will not raise any arguments or defenses to 

liability (if applicable) as to the Removal Action Costs other than those raised in 

connection with GE’s Motion. 

Case 1:06-cv-00354-PB Document 155 Filed 07/09/10 Page 3 of 5
-4-

FOR PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES 

ROBERT DREHER 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

Environment and Natural Resources Division 

United States Department of Justice 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

/s/ Laura J. Rowley Date: July 2, 2010 

Laura J. Rowley, Trial Attorney 

Environmental Enforcement Section 

United States Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 7611 

Washington, DC 20044-7611 

(202) 616-8763 

laura.rowley@usdoj.gov 

Catherine Adams Fiske, Trial Attorney 

Environmental Enforcement Section 

United States Department of Justice 

One Gateway Center, Suite 616 

Newton, MA 02458 

FOR DEFENDANT, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 

/s/ Peter A. Biagetti Date: July 2, 2010 

Bret A. Cohen, BNH No. 15989 

Jeffrey R. Porter, MA BBO No. 552520 

Peter A. Biagetti, MA BBO No. 042310 

Colin G. Van Dyke, MA BBO No. 665021 

MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, 

 GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C. 

One Financial Center 

Boston, Massachusetts 02111 

(617) 542-6000 

Case 1:06-cv-00354-PB Document 155 Filed 07/09/10 Page 4 of 5
-5-

SO ORDERED THIS DAY OF , 2010 . 

___________________________ 

Paul J. Barbadoro 

Unites State District Court Judge 

Case 1:06-cv-00354-PB Document 155 Filed 07/09/10 Page 5 of 5