Solutia, Inc. v. McWane, Inc.
672 F.3d 1230
11th Cir.2012Background
- Monsanto operated a PCB-producing plant in Anniston, Alabama from 1929–1971; Solutia, spun off from Monsanto in 2002, owns the Anniston plant, later merged to form Pharmacia Corporation in 2000.
- EPA filed a CERCLA enforcement action in 2002; in 2003 the parties entered a Partial Consent Decree imposing joint and several cleanup obligations and reserving Solutia/Pharmacia rights to seek contribution for the Anniston Lead Site.
- In 2004–2006 the EPA settled with Foothills Community Partnership to reimburse past and future lead-cleanup costs, and most Defendants joined that settlement; Solutia/Pharmacia challenged this as undermining their contribution rights.
- In July 2006 the EPA and Solutia/Pharmacia entered a Stipulation clarifying remedial obligations by geographic zones A–D; the Stipulation indicated lead-related work within PCB zones and refined scope of liability.
- Solutia/Pharmacia filed suit in 2003 seeking (1) contribution under §113(f) for Anniston Lead and PCB sites and (2) recovery under §107(a) for costs at the Anniston Lead Site; defendants moved for summary judgment on §107(a) and §113(f).
- The district court initially allowed §107(a) recovery for some costs, then later granted summary judgment against Solutia/Pharmacia on §107(a) claims based on the Stipulation and PCD; Solutia/Pharmacia challenged on Rule 59(e) grounds and on the theory of §107(a) availability despite a consent decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §107(a) allows recovery of costs incurred under a consent decree. | Solutia/Pharmacia contend §107(a) permits recovery for their directly incurred cleanup costs. | CERCLA remedies are distinct; once a consent decree imposes costs, §113(f) is the exclusive remedy for reimbursement. | No; §107(a) not available for costs governed by a consent decree; §113(f) controls when settlement obligations exist. |
| Whether §113(f) is the exclusive remedy for costs arising under a consent decree, precluding §107(a) recovery for those costs. | (Solutia/Pharmacia) §107(a) should coexist with §113(f) even for decree-mandated costs. | §113(f) exclusive for costs arising from settlements; allowing §107(a) would undermine CERCLA structure and limitations. | §113(f) is the exclusive remedy for costs incurred under a consent decree; §107(a) cannot be used for those costs. |
| Whether the Stipulation and Partial Consent Decree's geographic scope binds Solutia/Pharmacia to §113(f) claims for Anniston Lead Site costs. | Stipulation does not bindingly assign all Lead Site costs to §113(f). | Stipulation and PCD, read with Zone-based obligations, show Lead Site costs fall within §113(f) scope. | Lead Site costs fall within the Stipulation’s Zones; Solutia/Pharmacia have exclusive §113(f) rights for those costs. |
| Whether the District Court erred in denying Solutia/Pharmacia’s Rule 59(e) motion to alter judgment regarding uncovered costs. | Rule 59(e) should reinstate §107(a) claims for areas not covered by the PCD. | Arguments not raised earlier; district court acted within discretion in denying the motion. | No abuse of discretion; Rule 59(e) denied and summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atlantic Richfield Co. v. United States, 551 U.S. 128 (U.S. 2007) (distinguishes direct cleanup costs under §107(a) vs. reimbursement under §113(f))
- Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Aviall Servs., Inc., 543 U.S. 157 (U.S. 2004) (§113(f) right of contribution where reimbursing third party costs; settlement affects remedies)
- Atl. Rich. Co. v. UGI Utils., Inc., 463 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2006) (consent decree yields §113(f) rights; supports contribution remedy framework)
- Morrison Enters., LLC v. Dravo Corp., 638 F.3d 594 (8th Cir. 2011) (consent decree costs are governed by §113(f) and not §107(a) to preserve CERCLA framework)
- Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 596 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (courts held consent decree costs are governed by §113(f))
- Agere Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Envtl. Tech. Corp., 602 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2010) (consent decree parties cannot bring §107(a) claims for decree-mandated costs)
- United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004) (statutory interpretation standard for CERCLA remedy)