Alliedsignal, Inc. v. Amcast International Corp.
177 F. Supp. 2d 713, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5469, 2001 WL 456419 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a CERCLA contribution action under § 113(f), a court has broad discretion to allocate response costs using appropriate equitable factors, and may allocate costs for different components of a cleanup remedy (e.g., groundwater treatment vs. surface capping) based on different criteria (e.g., relative toxicity vs. relative volume).
Facts:
- AlliedSignal, Inc. operated a coal tar plant in Ironton, Ohio, which generated hazardous waste containing high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), some of which were carcinogenic.
- Amcast Industrial Corp. operated a foundry in Ironton that generated waste, primarily foundry sand, which contained much smaller quantities of the same carcinogenic PAHs.
- From approximately 1950 to 1977, both AlliedSignal and Amcast disposed of their industrial wastes in a shared site known as the Goldcamp Disposal Area (GDA).
- In 1955, AlliedSignal purchased the GDA and thereafter exercised control over the waste disposed of at the site.
- AlliedSignal disposed of some of its waste as a hot, liquid substance which, when mixed with Amcast's foundry sand, had the effect of releasing the PAHs bonded to the sand, facilitating their migration into the groundwater.
- By volume, AlliedSignal contributed 72% of the waste to the GDA and Amcast contributed 28%.
- By toxicity, AlliedSignal contributed 97-98% of the total PAHs (the primary hazardous substance driving the cleanup), while Amcast was responsible for the remaining 2-3%.
- After the EPA placed the GDA on the National Priorities List, AlliedSignal entered into agreements with the EPA to fund and perform the site cleanup, incurring costs in excess of $12 million.
Procedural Posture:
- AlliedSignal, Inc. filed suit against Amcast Industrial Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
- The complaint sought cost recovery under CERCLA § 107(a) and contribution under § 113(f) for cleanup costs at the Goldcamp Disposal Area.
- Amcast asserted a counterclaim against AlliedSignal seeking contribution under CERCLA § 113(f).
- The case proceeded to a bench trial, with the court sitting as the finder of fact.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under CERCLA § 113(f), should the equitable allocation of cleanup costs be based on a single factor like the volume of waste contributed, or may a court apply different equitable factors to different components of the remedy, such as allocating remedy-driven costs based on toxicity and other costs based on volume?
Opinions:
Majority - Rice, Chief Judge
Yes, a court may apply different equitable factors to different components of the cleanup remedy. The court determined that since the groundwater remediation was driven by the presence of carcinogenic PAHs, costs for that portion of the remedy should be allocated based on each party's relative contribution of PAHs. However, since the need for a surface cap was driven by the total volume of waste deposited, its cost should be allocated based on each party's relative volume of waste contributed. The court first held that because AlliedSignal was also a potentially responsible party (PRP), its claim was for contribution under CERCLA § 113(f), not a cost recovery action under § 107(a). Under § 113(f), courts are granted broad discretion to allocate response costs among liable parties using equitable factors, such as the 'Gore factors.' The court found that the most expensive and critical part of the cleanup—the slurry wall and groundwater treatment—was 'driven by' the presence of carcinogenic PAHs. Therefore, the most equitable way to allocate these specific costs was to apportion them based on each party's relative contribution of PAHs. The court allocated 2% of these costs to Amcast, selecting the lower end of the 2-3% range because AlliedSignal, as the site owner, facilitated the release of Amcast's PAHs through its disposal of hot, liquid waste. In contrast, the court reasoned that the surface cap was required due to the existence of the landfill itself, not its specific toxicity. Thus, the fairest way to allocate the cost of the cap was based on the volume of waste each party contributed, making Amcast responsible for 28% of the cap's cost.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for its nuanced approach to equitable allocation in complex CERCLA contribution actions. It establishes the principle that a court is not confined to a single allocation methodology for an entire cleanup project. By bifurcating the allocation—tying certain costs to toxicity and causal contribution while linking other costs to sheer volume—the court provides a flexible framework for future cases. This precedent allows courts to achieve a more precise and equitable distribution of liability that reflects the distinct nature of different remedial actions required at a single hazardous waste site.
