MPM Silicones, LLC v. Union Carbide Corp.MPM Silicones, LLC v. Union Carbide Corp.
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Dennis Jacobs, Pierre N. Leval
In cross-appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Brenda K. Sannes, J.), Plaintiff MPM Silicones, LLC (“MPM“) appeals the grant of partial summary judgment dismissing its claims for recovery of “remedial action” costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA“) as barred by the statute of limitations in
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. BACKGROUND............................................................................................................. 6
I. UCC‘S USE OF PCBS AT THE SITE ................................................................................ 6
I. SUBSEQUENT OWNERSHIP OF THE SITE ...................................................................... 17
III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY .............................................................................................. 24
IV. THE DISTRICT COURT‘S JULY 2016 ORDER.................................................................. 27
V. THE DISTRICT COURT‘S SEPTEMBER 2017 ORDER....................................................... 30
B. DISCUSSION................................................................................................................ 33
I. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................... 33
a. UCC‘s construction of the earthen cap and the diversion ditch in 1992 were remedial........................................................................................................................... 44
b. NYSEG‘s single-remediation principle was not intended to govern all circumstances ................................................................................................................. 47
II. FUTURE REMOVAL COSTS .......................................................................................... 67
a. Constitutional ripeness........................................................................................... 69
b. Prudential ripeness................................................................................................. 71
c. Future removal cost allocation ............................................................................... 77
C. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 81
JACOBS and LEVAL, Circuit Judges:
These are cross-appeals by Plaintiff MPM Silicones, LLC (“MPM“) and Defendant Union Carbide Corporation (“UCC“) from different aspects of the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Brenda J. Sannes, J.). Plaintiff MPM owns and operates the Sistersville site (“Sistersville” or the “Site“), a manufacturing facility in Friendly, West Virginia. The Site was previously owned and operated by Defendant UCC for many decades.
In the course of UCC‘s manufacturing operations at the Site in the 1960s and 1970s, UCC generated substantial amounts of toxic polychlorinated biphenyl (“PCB“) waste and buried that waste in various areas of the site. After MPM acquired the Site, it discovered some of this buried PCB waste and undertook a program of clean-up activity in response. MPM brought this suit against UCC under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA“) to recover from UCC the costs it had incurred (and would incur) in cleaning up UCC‘s PCB contamination.
As explained below, with respect to the timeliness of CERCLA suits to recover such response costs, the governing statute distinguishes between what it identifies as “removal” action,
With respect to MPM‘s claims to recover remediation costs, the district court granted summary judgment to UCC on the grounds that, under
We hold that the district court relied on invalid reasoning in concluding that MPM‘s claim for recovery of the costs of its remediation efforts is time-barred by
A. BACKGROUND
i. UCC‘s use of PCBs at the Site
The Site consists of 1,300 acres of land in a rural area bordering the Ohio River. The site was undeveloped farmland until UCC acquired it and constructed manufacturing facilities. UCC operated those facilities to manufacture a variety of chemical products from approximately 1955 to April 1993. Today, the site is still used for chemical manufacturing and contains several facilities for the storage, treatment, and disposal of manufacturing waste — known as “Solid Waste Management Units” — including a wastewater treatment unit, an active hazardous waste landfill, and two inactive waste-disposal areas. These are known as the North Inactive Site and the South Inactive Site.
During its operation of the Site, UCC used hundreds of thousands of pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs“) in its manufacturing processes. Those processes created substantial PCB-laden chemical wastes. UCC disposed of that waste by burning it, or by depositing it into neutralization tanks or lime pits at the Site. After the lime pits filled with sludge, UCC drained them and dug them out, and used the PCB-laden sludge to backfill other areas of the Site. Some of the PCB-laden waste was deposited in the North Inactive Site, a 5.5 acre landfill located uphill and northwest of the Site‘s waste water treatment facility and a creek that runs through the Site, known as Sugar Camp Run. See Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 77-1 at 48 (map of the Site); see also Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 80-17 at 82–85 (ENVIRON Map of Site). The precise locations of all the backfill areas are unknown.
Figure 1: Partial Map of the Site (Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 77-1 at 48)
UCC used PCBs at Sistersville until 1972, when environmental concerns regarding PCB toxicity began to emerge.2 In 1979, after soil sample analysis reported
neutralization tanks, and backfilling areas of the Site with sludge from the lime ponds. Schubert identified several areas in the North Inactive Site and several locations south of the wastewater treatment plant where he believed UCC had dumped PCB wastes and further determined that UCC had shifted around previously buried waste during several construction projects. Schubert summarized his findings in a January 1980 memorandum, in which he stated that “it is reasonable to conclude that in the area of the Sistersville Plant site there are buried . . . heavies with up to 250,000 pounds of PCB[s].” Dist. Ct. Dkt. 238 at 71. That memorandum was circulated to UCC employees, including UCC‘s Plant Manager.
UCC conducted several rounds of testing for various contaminants (including PCBs) at the Site between 1979 and 1981. While some tests showed low levels of PCBs in groundwater, the results overall were inconsistent and revealed only small amounts of PCBs.3 In 1984, a UCC memorandum
regarding contamination at the North Inactive Site recognized that “[a]lthough no definitive evidence can be found, it is possible that up to 250,000 pounds of PCB[s] are buried at this site . . . However, wells at this site when last monitored in 1981 showed no significant leaching or contamination and no PCB[s] were found.” Dist. Ct. Dkt. 78–10 at 1. A 1992 memorandum summarizing all prior UCC investigations into PCBs at the Site — including Schubert‘s 1980 memorandum — concluded that “it is not possible to state unequivocally that PCB[s] were not placed in the north inactive site” but that “[i]nformation suggesting disposal is purely speculative” because “[m]onitoring data to date do not substantiate the speculation.” App‘x 382–83. At various times during the 1980s and 1990s, UCC employees speculated that the low levels of PCBs detected by UCC‘s site monitoring tests were the result of spillage from PCB-containing electrical equipment that UCC had used at the site.
In 1981, as required by the recently enacted Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA“), see
application that it was aware of several types of hazardous waste at the Site, it did not disclose its prior use of PCBs, leaving a check box for “PCBs” unchecked.5
In its written correspondence with the EPA regarding its RCRA permit for Sistersville, UCC made no mention of its prior use of PCBs or its dumping of PCB-laden waste. In response to the EPA‘s 1985 request for information about all solid waste management units at the Site that had “the potential to release hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents to the environment,” Sp. App‘x 87, UCC disclosed general information about some potential contaminants at the North and South Inactive Sites but did not mention PCBs.6
In response to the EPA‘s 1986 further request for information regarding the solid waste management units, UCC disclosed the results of its site testing, which showed that, if any PCBs were present in the tested samples, that presence was below detection limits. UCC did not communicate its history of PCB use and disposal at Sistersville.
EPA representatives visited the Site on May 15, 1986, and while the parties dispute what happened during that visit, Fred Dailey, a UCC employee, wrote a memorandum in 1987 — one year after the visit — stating that, during the visit, he informed the EPA orally that “it was speculated that as much as 500,000 lbs of contaminated PCB heat fluid was generated during the plant‘s previous activities,” that “its disposition was never determined,” and that “it could have been placed in an inactive site.” Sp. App‘x 88. Dailey‘s memo then stated that he told the EPA representatives that UCC had conducted groundwater testing and examination of the inactive
According to Dailey‘s 1987 memorandum, the EPA representatives did not further inquire about PCBs during the meeting.
In 1988, the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (“WVDNR“) — which was authorized by the EPA to administer certain provisions of RCRA — issued UCC a permit covering Sistersville‘s active hazardous waste management units. That permit included a “Remedial Action Plan” requiring UCC to treat the groundwater near a copper sludge removal pond at Sistersville. In 1991, UCC installed a recovery well, which was part of a larger project to close the sludge pond.
Also in 1988, the EPA issued a RCRA permit to UCC for Sistersville. The EPA determined that eight of the solid waste management units at the Site — including the North Inactive Site and the wastewater treatment system — required further investigation and required UCC to submit a workplan to remediate hazardous waste issues at each unit. The EPA‘s RCRA permit did not mention PCBs. UCC submitted a workplan for the North Inactive Site in 1992, which concluded that the area was a source of contamination and recommended construction of an earthen cap to reduce surface water, sediment, and groundwater contamination. UCC‘s 1992 submission to the EPA did not mention PCBs because of what UCC later referred to as “an inadvertent failure to perform PCB analysis.” Dist. Ct. Dkt. 89-1 at 25 ¶ 62. The EPA accepted UCC‘s proposal, and UCC undertook construction of the earthen cap in the summer and fall of 1992.7 The same year, UCC also constructed a diversion ditch to intercept surface water from the hillside and divert it away from the disposal area. In 1993, UCC wrote a letter to the EPA advising that it inadvertently failed to disclose PCBs in its 1992 report and disclosing sampling results from Sugar Camp Run showing low levels of PCBs. The EPA did not require any further action in response to this additional disclosure.
None of the corrective actions undertaken by UCC were designed to investigate or address the possibility that large amounts of PCB-laden wastes were buried at Sistersville. Instead, the construction of the earthen cap and the diversion ditch for the North Inactive Site were designed to address the presence of other contaminants in groundwater and soil in various parts of the north end of the Site — contaminants UCC believed to have originated at the
North Inactive Site.8 As more recent events make clear, a full investigation into UCC‘s historical PCB waste dumping would have required a comprehensive sampling program in the vicinity of the North Inactive Site and other potential dumping sites and in Sugar Camp Run. UCC did not conduct such a study, nor did the EPA require it to.9 Documents produced in the
i. Subsequent ownership of the Site
In 1993, UCC entered into an agreement to sell the Site to OSi Specialties, Inc. (“OSi“). Prior to closing, OSi retained Environment Strategies Corporation (“ESC“) to conduct environmental due diligence. ESC requested information from UCC about materials disposed of at the North Inactive Site, and UCC directed ESC to the 1992 workplan it had submitted to the EPA, which purported to detail the known contaminants at the site. ESC issued a report which included five paragraphs on PCBs, three of which address PCB-containing electrical equipment. The other two paragraphs discuss soil samples collected in 1992 and 1993 which showed the presence of PCBs, but not at a level requiring remediation under EPA guidelines.
After the sale, the RCRA permit for the Site transferred to OSi. In 1994, OSi submitted to the EPA a Corrective Measures/Stabilization Proposal for the North Inactive Site, which summarized the corrective actions that had previously been taken to control surface water infiltration and runoff from the North Inactive Site — including the earthen cap and diversion ditch UCC had built in 1992 — and proposing the construction of an interceptor trench to divert water away from the North Inactive Site and continued monitoring and maintenance of the site. EPA approved the proposal in June 1994, and OSi constructed the interceptor trench in the fall of 1994. In 1997, EPA modified the Site‘s permits to recognize that it was satisfied with the measures being taken to remedy contamination at the North Inactive Site and to require continued inspection and maintenance of the earthen cap and the diversion ditches.
In 2003, OSi, which had become Crompton Corporation, sold the Site to an affiliate of General Electric, Inc., (“GE“), then named GE Advanced Materials, which would later become Plaintiff MPM Silicones. The purchase agreement included indemnity provisions relating to environmental contamination at the Site. Prior to the sale to GE, OSi/Crompton again retained ESC to perform an environmental site assessment. After conducting site visits and interviews, ESC issued a report stating that the Site had obtained “PCB free” status following the removal of all PCB-containing electrical equipment in 1991. Sp. App‘x 93. The report also acknowledged a previous UCC memo recognizing the possibility that PCBs had been disposed of at the North Inactive Site but noting that UCC‘s site monitoring could not substantiate the existence of buried PCB wastes.
GE hired ENVIRON, an environmental consulting firm, to conduct a review of the site prior to the sale. John Wood, a GE employee who supervised ENVIRON‘s environmental due diligence, testified (at his deposition during the proceedings in the
ENVIRON conducted extensive soil and groundwater testing at the Site in May 2003. ENVIRON‘s final report, issued in May 2004 (after the sale of the property closed in July 2003), noted that PCBs had been found in concentrations exceeding federal regulatory thresholds in groundwater and soil samples from various areas in the north end of Sistersville — including Sugar Camp Run — and that these positive PCB results were “unexpected.” Dist. Ct. Dkt. 80–17 at 74.10 The report explained that prior reports of PCB-laden waste dumping at the Site had been dismissed based on a 1992 UCC memorandum determining — without explanation — that positive PCB results had been “determined not to be valid,” and based on statements from UCC representatives that UCC‘s “distillation process would not produce PCBs.” Id. at 11–12. The report, however, further stated:
Although Facility representatives are no longer concerned about PCBs in the North Inactive Area, unexpected levels of PCBs were found in some Facility soils and selected ground water samples during the Phase II investigation. As there is no obvious source for these PCBs, resampling of ground water, and further investigation of soil, is suggested.
Id.; see also id. at 74. In July 2004, GE Advanced Materials sent the May 2004 ENVIRON report to OSi/Crompton and asserted that under the indemnity provisions in the purchase agreement OSi/Crompton was responsible for the costs associated with the necessary investigation and remediation of PCBs at the Site. OSi/Crompton disclaimed financial responsibility, but nonetheless engaged ESC to investigate PCB contamination in two areas of the Site: the Waste Incineration Area and the Permitted Hazardous Storage Waste Area — both of which are in close proximity to the North Inactive Site. ESC issued a final report on May 30, 2006, concluding that PCB levels in certain areas of the site exceeded federal regulatory levels, and recommended “a second phase of soil characterization to delineate the vertical
ii. MPM discovers buried PCBs
In June 2008, during construction of a project to upgrade the site‘s wastewater treatment unit, MPM uncovered discolored soils which, when analyzed, were revealed to be contaminated with PCBs. MPM suspended its construction project and spent $123,195.05 in response to its discovery. This included $30,385.18 disposing of the contaminated materials it had uncovered; $8,714.71 decontaminating rented construction equipment; and $84,095.16 on steel shoring it needed to prevent the excavated area from caving in.
In August 2008, MPM contacted OSi/Crompton (then known as Chemtura) informing it of the recently discovered contamination and again asserting that OSi/Crompton was responsible for the costs of remediation. OSi/Crompton again disclaimed responsibility under the indemnity provisions of the purchase agreement. In June 2009, MPM hired Clean Harbors, an environmental consulting firm, to conduct further sampling in the wastewater treatment unit area. Clean Harbors uncovered additional contamination and reported that it could not yet determine the geographical extent of the contamination. MPM incurred costs of $251,345.20 in connection with Clean Harbors’ sampling activities, bringing its total outlays in response to its discovery of PCBs to $374,540.25. After receiving the results from Clean Harbors, MPM searched the Site‘s records and found UCC documents dating back to 1970 that indicated that UCC had purchased and used “significant quantities” of PCBs at the Site. Sp. App‘x 105.
MPM has not conducted any further soil sampling or any further construction work on its construction of the wastewater treatment upgrade since Clean Harbor concluded its sampling in September 2009. MPM, however, plans to resume the wastewatertreatment upgrade by installing a pump station in the location where it encountered PCBs in 2008, which will require MPM to excavate and dispose of the PCB-containing soils.
MPM contacted UCC regarding the PCB contamination in September 2010, and the parties entered into a tolling agreement which tolled the statute of limitations from May 19, 2011 to December 30, 2011. MPM reported its discovery of the PCB contamination to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (“WVDEP“) in March 2012. As of September 2017, neither WVDEP nor the EPA had required any further remediation of the PCB contamination.11
iii. Procedural History
MPM filed this suit on December 30, 2011 seeking, inter alia, reimbursement under CERCLA from UCC for $374,540.25 in past cleanup costs, and a declaratory judgment of UCC‘s liability for any future cleanup costs required to deal with contamination at Sistersville.12 UCC brought
Like RCRA, CERCLA was enacted to “address the risks associated with the improper storage and disposal of hazardous and toxic substances.” Schaefer v. Town of Victor, 457 F.3d 188, 190 (2d Cir. 2006). CERCLA‘s “dual goals [are] cleaning up hazardous waste and holding polluters responsible for their actions.” New York v. Next Millennium Realty, LLC, 732 F.3d 117, 124 (2d Cir. 2013).14 Among other measures, CERCLA “authoriz[es] private parties to pursue contribution or indemnification from potentially responsible parties for expenses incurred responding to environmental threats.” Commander Oil Corp. v. Barlo Equip. Corp., 215 F.3d 321, 326 (2d Cir. 2000).15 Section 107(a) of CERCLA provides a cause of action for private parties to seek recovery of costs from a “potentially responsible party”16 of “any [] necessary costs of response” to a release of hazardous substances. Schaefer, 457 F.3d at 195; see also
CERCLA‘s cost-recovery provision distinguishes between two kinds of response projects. “Remedial actions” are “generally long-term or permanent containment or disposal programs,” State of New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032, 1040 (2d Cir. 1985), which are taken “in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance into the environment” and are “consistent with [a] permanent remedy.”
The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. UCC argued, inter alia, that MPM‘s Section 107 claim for reimbursement of past remediation costs (and its Section 113(g)(2) claim for a declaratory judgment on UCC‘s liability for future remediation costs) were time-barred because previous corrective actions taken at Sistersville — specifically, UCC‘s installation of a recovery well in 1991 and its construction of the earthen cap and diversion ditch in 1992, and OSi/Crompton‘s construction of the interceptor trench in 1994 — were remediations, so that the commencement of construction of these measures in the early 1990s triggered the six-year statute of limitations for remediations.
iv. The district court‘s July 2016 order
The district court‘s July 7, 2016 order concluded that UCC‘s actions in the early 1990s (and OSi‘s construction of the interceptor trench in 1994) were remediation (rather than removal), based in part on the fact that the EPA had incorporated these measures into the “final remedy” for dealing with contamination at Sistersville. See MPM I, 2016 WL 3962630, at *11–14. (MPM challenges this conclusion on appeal, arguing that “UCC‘s activities were more analogous to removal action than to remedial action.” MPM Br. at 46–50.)
The district court further found that MPM‘s claims for reimbursement of costs of its past remediations (under Section 107(a)) and its request for a declaratory judgment on UCC‘s liability for future remediation costs (under Section 113(g)(2)) were time-barred. MPM I, 2016 WL 3962630, at *14–19. In so holding, the district court relied on a statement in our decision in NYSEG that “there can only be one remedial action at any given site.” 766 F.3d at 235. The district court characterized the multiple remediation projects — i.e., (i) UCC and OSi‘s corrective actions in the early-1990s, (ii) any efforts undertaken by MPM to dispose of the PCB-contaminated soil in 2008 that were remedial in nature, and (iii) any future remediation efforts MPM would undertake to decontaminate the Site — as part of the Site‘s single remediation and held that “the statute of limitations [to recover costs for that remediation] began to run when [UCC] commenced physical on-site construction of the remedial action [in the early 1990s].” MPM I, 2016 WL 3962630, at *14. Because the six-year statute of limitations began to run in the early-1990s, the court held that the limitations “had expired long before the parties’ May 19, 2011 tolling agreement,” and that MPM‘s claims were time-barred under Section 113(g)(2)(B). Id.17
On that basis, the district court granted UCC‘s motion for summary judgment to the extent that MPM‘s claims sought recovery of costs related to any remediation at the Site. Id. at *35. The district court, however, held that UCC was liable as a matter of law for past and future costs of removal that MPM had undertaken or would undertake at Sistersville. Id.18 Accordingly, the court entered a declaratory judgment as to UCC‘s liability for the costs of future “removal actions” at Sistersville. Id. at *31.19 In a later order, the district court granted UCC‘s motion for summary judgment that MPM was liable under Section 113(f)(1) in contribution for an equitable share of the response costs — leaving open the issue of cost allocation between MPM and UCC.20 The parties subsequently reached a settlement of MPM‘s claim for past removal costs. After the settlement, the only remaining issue was the allocation of financial responsibility for any future removal costs.
v. The district court‘s September 2017 order
From January 31, 2017 to February 2, 2017, the district court held a bench trial on the remaining issues: (a) whether future response costs should be allocated and (b) what the parties’ equitable shares of those response costs should be. In a September 22, 2017 order, the district court held that the issue of allocation of costs was ripe for adjudication because MPM had established that “it is likely to incur future costs in responding to PCBs at the Site because MPM plans to upgrade its wastewater treatment facilities” which will require that “MPM respond appropriately to PCBs in the soils.” MPM III, 2017 WL 6408611, at *15–18. UCC argues on appeal that the district court erred in so holding because the possibility of MPM incurring future removal costs is too remote.
In considering how to allocate future removal costs, the district court noted that “UCC was the only entity to bring PCBs onto the Site” and “benefitted from disposal of the [PCB] waste” without having to engage in any corrective action (factors which weighed in favor of allocating costs to UCC), but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that “UCC‘s failure to disclose PCBs [to regulators] was driven by an intention to conceal information.” MPM III, 2017 WL 6408611, at *19. The court also rejected UCC‘s argument that MPM should bear a majority of future removal costs because MPM “had notice of the PCBs and assumed the risk of future PCB-related response costs when it acquired the Site,” instead crediting Wood‘s testimony that, during the due diligence process, UCC employees led him to believe that “any PCB contamination was due to PCB electrical equipment.” Id. at *20. Further, the court rejected UCC‘s argument that the indemnity agreement between MPM and Crompton warranted allocating responsibility to MPM, finding that “MPM has not been indemnified, nor is there any reason to conclude that it will be” because “Crompton has disclaimed responsibility under the indemnity agreement.” Id. at *21. The court also rejected the argument that MPM should bear the majority of the responsibility because it would “derive commercial benefit from any future removal action when it upgrades the wastewater treatment unit,” holding that “there is no evidence that MPM would realize a meaningful increase in property value as a result of a PCB cleanup.” Id.
The court, however, faulted MPM for failing to contact government regulators after discovering PCB-contaminated soil in 2008, and for waiting until 2012 to inform WVDEP of this development, noting that the Site‘s RCRA permit required MPM to notify regulators of any “relevant facts” regarding newly-discovered contamination within seven days of discovery. Id. at *20–21. Accordingly, the court allocated five percent of future removal costs to MPM and allocated the remaining ninety-five percent of future removal costs to UCC. Id. at *1.21 (On appeal, UCC argues that the district court abused its discretion in weighing the relevant allocation factors, and that the district court should have allocated more of the cost burden to MPM.)
B. DISCUSSION
MPM argues in this appeal that the district court erred in concluding that MPM‘s claims for reimbursement of remediation costs are time-barred by § 113(g)(2)(B). UCC contends that the district court erred in determining that future allocation of removal costs was ripe for review, and further erred in allocating 95% of those costs against it.
i. Statute of Limitations
MPM directs its arguments against two aspects of the district court‘s finding of untimeliness: (1) the court‘s conclusion that UCC‘s prior response projects in the 1990s were in the nature of remediation, rather than removal; and (2) its conclusion that, if UCC‘s prior response projects constituted remediation, the six years allowed
We agree with the district court that UCC‘s corrective actions undertaken in the 1990s were remediation, but we do not understand NYSEG to mean that, for purposes of determining the timeliness of a cost recovery action, all remediation activity at a site regardless of circumstances is deemed to be part of a single remediation, so that the six year limitations period necessarily begins to run at the start of the first remedial activity. Accordingly, we believe the district court‘s conclusion that MPM‘s suit was untimely was based on an inaccurate premise. We do not decide whether MPM‘s suit to recovery remediation costs was in fact timely, but instead vacate the district court‘s decision and remand for reconsideration consistent with this opinion.
The distinction between “removal” actions and “remedial action[s]” arises from the first iteration of the CERCLA statute enacted in 1980. See Pub. L. 96–510, § 101(a)(23)–(24); 94 Stat. 2767, 2770–71 (1980) (defining “remove” or “removal” and “remedy” or “remedial action“). The statute defines “remove” or “removal” as:
the cleanup or removal of released hazardous substances from the environment, such actions as may be necessary [] in the event of the threat of release of hazardous substances into the environment, such actions as may be necessary to monitor, assess, and evaluate the release or threat of release of hazardous substances, the disposal of removed material, or the taking of such other actions as may be necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate damages to the public health or welfare or to the environment, which may otherwise result from a release or threat of release.
Further, the statute provides several examples of “removal” actions, including:
security fencing or other measures to limit access, provision of alternative water supplies, temporary evacuation and housing of threatened individuals not otherwise provided for.
The statute defines “remedy” or “remedial action” as:
those actions consistent with permanent remedy taken instead of or in addition to removal actions in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance into the environment, to prevent or minimize the release of hazardous substances so that they do not migrate to cause substantial danger to present or future public health or welfare or the environment.
The statute also provides an illustrative list of “remedial action[s],” including:
such actions at the location of the release as storage, confinement, perimeter protection using dikes, trenches, or ditches, clay cover, neutralization, cleanup of released hazardous substances and associated contaminated materials, recycling or reuse, diversion, destruction, segregation of reactive wastes, dredging or excavations, repair or replacement of leaking containers,
collection of leachate and runoff, onsite treatment or incineration, provision of alternative water supplies, and any monitoring reasonably required to assure that such actions protect the public health and welfare and the environment. The term [also] includes the costs of permanent relocation of residents and businesses and community facilities [where] such relocation is more cost-effective [than other remedial action] . . . [and also] includes offsite transport and offsite storage, treatment, destruction, or secure disposition of hazardous substances and associated contaminated materials.
The statutory definitions do not provide clear insight as to the boundary between removals and remediations. The definitions of each type of action overlap substantially: certain corrective actions — like covering contaminated soil or diverting water away from contaminated areas with drainage controls,22 the provision of alternative water supplies to replace contaminated water,23 and related monitoring activities24 — may be classified as either “removal” or “remedial” actions. Over several decades of CERCLA litigation, courts have agreed on a general principle to distinguish the two: “[r]emoval actions are generally clean-up measures taken in response to immediate threats to public health and safety” that “address contamination at its endpoint,” while “[r]emedial actions are typically actions designed to permanently remediate hazardous waste” that address contamination at its source. NYSEG, 766 F.3d at 230–31.
The key distinction between the two terms is immediacy and comprehensiveness. United States v. W.R. Grace & Co., 429 F.3d 1224, 1244 (9th Cir. 2005). Removal actions are undertaken to deal with “threat[s] to human health or the environment which require[] an immediate response.” Id. (citations omitted).25 Because removal actions are generally targeted at reducing the deleterious effects of contamination — e.g. the removal from downstream water supply wells of contaminants that have migrated from a nearby landfill, see Next Millenium, 732 F.3d at 126–27 — they are generally not so ambitious as to seek to eliminate or permanently contain the source of contamination. They do not generally aim to serve as permanent solutions. See, e.g., NYSEG, 766 F.3d at 231–33 (characterizing efforts to “clean[] up coal tar that had already migrated from [the source of contamination]” and to “remove [coal tar] from [a]
Removals are often planned and executed relatively quickly in order to immediately abate public health hazards, such as contaminated drinking water.26 Accordingly, removals are often undertaken to secure prompt relief from a danger even though the action is not deemed a step toward permanent elimination of the threat. See, e.g., Colorado v. Sunoco, Inc., 337 F.3d 1233, 1244 (10th Cir. 2003) (holding that the plugging of a mine was a “removal” action in part because, when the plug was installed, “it was uncertain whether the plugging would achieve the goal of eliminating [contamination]“).27 In essence, because removals “can be initiated promptly after notification of a threat,” they provide “flexibility to tailor prompt and effective responses to immediate threats to human health and the environment.” W.R. Grace, 429 F.3d at 1226, 1240.
Remediations, by contrast, include only actions “consistent with [a] permanent remedy.”
remediate the full scope of those known problems. NYSEG, 766 F.3d at 236. Unlike removals, remediations typically address “the underlying source of the contamination.” Id. at 233 (citation omitted) (characterizing a 1980s cleanup to prevent coal tar that had migrated from its source from “further migrating into [a] river” — taken as “an immediate response to a health concern” about water contamination — as a removal action, but characterizing later work to excavate the source of the coal tar contamination as a remediation because it was “designed to remediate the pollution at its source“).
Moreover, CERCLA and its implementing regulations provide a pathway to “transition from a removal to a remedial action if it [is] ‘determine[d] that the removal
As passed in 1980, CERCLA did not contain a statute of limitations applicable to cost recovery actions under Section 107. See Merry v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 684 F. Supp. 852, 856 (M.D. Pa. 1988); United States v. Mottolo, 605 F. Supp. 898, 909–10 (D.N.H. 1985).29 In 1986, Congress passed the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (“SARA“), Pub. L. 99–499, 100 Stat. 1613, which implemented separate statutes of limitations for removals and remediations. See
An initial action for recovery of the costs referred to in [Section 107] must be commenced—
(A) for a removal action, within 3 years after completion of the removal action . . .
(B) for a remedial action, within 6 years after initiation of physical on-site construction of the remedial action . . . .
MPM argues on appeal that UCC‘s construction of an earthen cap and diversion ditch for the North Inactive Site (and OSi/Crompton‘s construction of a different interceptor trench in 1994) were removals rather than remediations because those actions are similar to actions that this court held in Next Millenium and NYSEG to be removals.32 In Next Millenium, however, we classified two measures — a “granulated activated carbon adsorption system” and an “air stripper tower,” both designed to remove volatile organic compounds from water supply wells in order to decontaminate drinking water, 732 F.3d at 122 — as removals in part because “both systems were installed in response to an imminent public health hazard,” which we noted was “a defining characteristic of removal actions.” Id. at 126. Moreover, the Next Millenium court noted that both measures “were designed . . . to address water contamination at the endpoint — the wells — and not to permanently remediate the problem by ‘prevent[ing] or minimiz[ing] the release of hazardous substances so that they do not migrate’ from the underlying source of contamination.” Id. at 127 (quoting
In contrast, each of the measures taken by UCC and OSi/Crompton to deal with the North Inactive Site in the 1990s were clearly remedial in nature. Neither the 1992 earthen cap, nor the 1992 diversion ditch, nor the 1994 interceptor trench were efforts to deal with any “imminent” hazard or threat to public safety by neutralizing contamination “at its endpoint.” See NYSEG, 766 F.3d at 231. There is no suggestion in the record that the contamination at Sistersville had caused any kind of time-sensitive threat that “required an immediate response.” W.R. Grace & Co., 429 F.3d at 1244 (citation omitted); see id. at 1245 (concluding that “removal actions encompass interim, partial time-sensitive responses taken to counter serious threats to public health“). Rather, these actions were taken as steps to permanently prevent contaminants known to be buried at the North Inactive Site from migrating away
b. NYSEG‘s single-remediation principle was not intended to govern all circumstances
The district court concluded that MPM‘s claims for reimbursement of the costs of its remediation are time-barred by reason of UCC‘s prior remediation, which began more than six years before MPM brought suit. The district court believed this conclusion was compelled by a statement in our NYSEG opinion, which signed on to a proposition asserted by the Tenth Circuit (and some other courts) that “there can only be one remedial action at a site.” 766 F.3d at 236.34 We believe for reasons explained below that this misinterpreted our NYSEG ruling.
The NYSEG opinion, as relevant here, considered whether the plaintiffs’ cost-recovery claims, brought in 2003, were barred by
At the one-acre Owego site, the plaintiff undertook to eliminate coal tar contamination between September 1994 and 1995 (the “1994 response“). Id. at 235. After discovering additional coal tar contamination and the pipe that was the source of that contamination, the plaintiff undertook additional response activity in 2003 (the “2003 response“). See NYSEG Dist. Ct. Op, 808 F. Supp. 2d at 479; NYSEG, 766 F.3d at 235. The defendant argued that work done in the 2003 response was a “continuation of the remedial work begun in 1994,” NYSEG, 766 F.3d at 235, so that the 2003 suit was time-barred by the passage of six years. See
On review, this court affirmed the district court‘s finding of untimeliness. NYSEG, 766 F.3d at 235–36. We rejected the plaintiff‘s argument that the work done in 2003 was a separate and distinct remediation from the remedial work done in 1994, see id. at 235; see also Br. for Plaintiff at 45–47 in NYSEG, 766 F.3d 212 (No. 11-4143) (2d Cir. 2014), characterizing it rather as a continuation of the earlier project.
What we have described above fully explained and justified the NYSEG court‘s conclusion that the suit was time-barred. As further support, however, the NYSEG court cited with approval the Tenth Circuit‘s statement in Colorado v. Sunoco that the CERCLA statute envisages only one “‘remedial action’ per site.” 337 F.3d at 1242. The district court in the case now before us understood that proposition as categorically applicable in all circumstances. MPM I, 2016 WL 3962630, at *14. For reasons explained below, we believe the NYSEG opinion cannot have intended this proposition to govern every different remediation circumstance. The proposition, although altogether reasonable in the conventional circumstances to which it was applied in NYSEG, Sunoco, and other cases, cannot have been intended to apply in very different circumstances, in which application of that proposition would make little sense.
In NYSEG, as reviewed above, the plaintiff had undertaken a series of remedial steps directed towards remediation of a contamination problem perceived at the outset; the subsequent steps were either explicitly foreseen at the start of the remediation (Norwich), see NYSEG, 766 F.3d at 234, or at least contemplated (Owego), id. at 235; see also NYSEG Dist. Ct. Op., 808 F. Supp. 2d at 478 (noting that the regulatory agency had defined the Susquehanna
The several precedents that NYSEG followed in uttering the single-remediation principle similarly involved the same conventional circumstance, for which that principle is fair and sensible. The plaintiffs — with at least a general awareness of the contamination problems — had undertaken at the outset to remedy them. The subsequent stages of response were either (1) further steps towards remediating the original problems, see, e.g., California ex rel. Cal. Dep‘t of Toxic Substances Control v. Hyampom Lumber Co., 903 F. Supp. 1389, 1390–91 (E.D. Cal. 1995), or (2) steps to remediate different aspects of the originally known problem, see, e.g., Sunoco, 337 F.3d at 1237–38. And there was no impediment that would have prevented the plaintiffs from suing the contaminator within six years of initiating the remediation as to both past and future remediation work.
In Hyampom, for example, the District Court for the Eastern District of California considered a series of steps undertaken by California‘s regulatory agency to remove contaminated soil from the site of a lumber mill. 903 F. Supp. at 1390. Those steps included: (a) the installation, in 1987 and 1988, of fences around the contaminated areas; (b) the construction, in September 1988, of temporary water and electrical infrastructure in preparation for the excavation of the contaminated areas; and (c) the excavation of the contaminated areas beginning in October 1988. Id. at 1390–91. There was no question that each of these steps were undertaken to remediate the same problem, and to bring about the same desired remedy, which the California Department of Toxic Substances (the regulator in charge of overseeing the cleanup) had identified in its Remedial Action Plan as the “excavat[ion] and remov[al] [of] the contaminated soil from the site.” Id. at 1390. There was nothing to prevent the State of California, which sought to recover the costs incurred by its regulator (under the same CERCLA provision as asserted here by MPM) from bringing a cost-recovery suit within six years of the “initiation of physical on-site construction” of its overall remediation effort. Because California failed to bring the suit within six years, it was not timely.
The situation considered in Colorado v. Sunoco involved cleanup activities at a former gold mine site that contained contaminated water. 337 F.3d at 1237–38. The EPA, together with the State of Colorado, took control of the site in 1992 to deal with multiple environmental threats, including (a) several adits (i.e. horizontal mine openings for drainage) in the gold mine through which “metal-contaminated, acidic water” drained out of the mine and into the environment and (b) a “heap leach pad” containing waste treatment sludge leftover from mining and waste treatment
In the circumstances of NYSEG (and in the precedents it cites), the single-remediation principle was logical and fair, and it served the designs and objectives of RCRA and CERCLA. Although it is a reliable prescription in the great majority of cases, we do not believe that our NYSEG
The most obvious example of inappropriate application of the single-remediation principle would arise when the subsequent remediation undertakes to remediate a problem that did not exist at the time of the prior remedial act. If, following a remediation, the operator of a site creates a different contamination, caused by different processes and a different contaminating substance, and the burden of remediating that contamination falls on a new owner that acquires the site many years later, there would never be a moment when the new owner could sue to recover its response costs. When such future contaminations occurred and became known, future owners or operators would be compelled by CERCLA and RCRA to report the discovery to government regulators and undertake any remediation that regulators may deem necessary, see
A second less obvious but equally illogical and inappropriate example would arise when a site operator discovers a previously unsuspected contamination that was unrelated to, and perhaps far distant from, a previously remediated contamination. Suppose, for example, that the owner of a 10,000 acre site in 1990 completely remediated a chemical spill that it had caused on a tiny corner of a site. Suppose further that another operator acquired the site many years later and discovered a fifty-year-old contamination, far distant from, and unrelated to the contamination that had been remedied in 1990, and unsuspected at that time. If the single-remediation principle were to be categorically applied, the new owner, although compelled by law to report and remediate, would be unfairly precluded from utilizing CERCLA‘s cost-recovery mechanism to recover the necessary costs of cleanup from the party responsible.
If, in a third scenario analogous to the present case, the original polluter implemented an inadequate remediation pursuant to a regulatory approval that was procured by inadequate disclosure, and then held the site for six years after the misguided project began, a later owner who discovers the contamination that the prior remediation failed to address would nevertheless be obliged to disclose and remediate it, but could not recover its costs if the single-remediation principle were applied. The original polluter would enjoy an undeserved immunity as a result of its inadequate disclosure of what needed to be remediated, and its retention of the site for six years after initiating its incomplete remediation.
A categorical single-remediation principle, while logical for the conventional pattern of cost-recovery suits, such as NYSEG, would frustrate and defeat the efficacy of cost-recovery as an essential motivator in the RCRA/CERCLA framework. Without access to cost-recovery suits against contaminators, neither private parties nor regulators would be incentivized
There is nothing in the words of the statute that invites a categorical single-remediation principle. Although Sunoco (which NYSEG cited) tried to find support within the statute‘s wording, see 337 F.3d at 1241, the grammatical principle that the court invoked would, under careful examination, support the opposite conclusion.40
[F]or a remedial action, [an initial action for recovery of costs must be commenced] within 6 years after initiation of physical on-site construction of the remedial action, except that, if the remedial action is initiated within 3 years after the completion of the removal action, costs incurred in the removal action may be recovered in the cost recovery action brought under this subparagraph.
The Tenth Circuit reasoned that the use of the definite article (“the”) in the second clause foreclosed the possibility of multiple remedial actions at a site, noting “[i]f Congress intended to allow multiple actions for separate components of recovery of remedy, it surely would have used the indefinite article ‘a’ rather than the definite article ‘the’ to modify the phrases ‘removal action’ and ‘remedial action.’” Sunoco, 337 F.3d at 1241. This puts more weight on the choice of article than the choice can bear. In any event, this overlooks the fact that, in the first usage of the term “remedial action,” the term is preceded by the indefinite article (“a remedial action”). The use of the definite article (“the”) in a subsequent reference to “remedial action” means that the subsequent reference is to the same “remedial action” as was previously mentioned. Suppose that one writes, “When interpreting a statute, courts must focus on the statute’s text.” The definite article (“the”) is used in the second reference to “statute.” But the first reference used the indefinite article (“a”). The use of “the” in the second reference means only that the second reference is to the previously mentioned statute. It does not mean that there can be but one statute to which the statement applies. The use of “the remedial action” in our statute’s second reference serves the same function as using “it” to refer to the earlier mentioned remedial action. If Congress had used “the” in its first reference to “remedial action,” that would have given arguable support to the Sunoco reasoning, but use of “the” following an introductory reference to “a remedial action” gives no support whatsoever. If anything, it demonstrates the contrary.
Moreover, the language on which the Tenth Circuit relied was not included in the CERCLA bill enacted in 1980, which implemented the definition of “remedial action” that remains in force today. That language was enacted six years later, as a part of SARA. See Pub. L. No. 99–499 (1986). There is no indication that Congress intended this part of SARA, which was evidently intended to create a statute of limitations for CERCLA cost-recovery claims where none existed before, see Section-by-Section Analysis: EPA’s Proposed Amendments to CERCLA, 99th Cong. 1st Sess, 131 Cong. Rec. 200000-25, 1985 WL 700809, at *28 (Feb. 22, 1985), to modify the definition of “remedial action” it had enacted six years earlier so as to foreclose the possibility of multiple remedial actions. See Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001) (“Congress . . . does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in . . . ancillary provisions—it does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes.”).
implementing regulations define the term “site” means that it can be applied to large areas, exacerbating the problems that could result from overly broad application of the concept.
For the reasons explained above, we understand the single-remediation principle stated in NYSEG to mean that, when a remediation is undertaken under a remediation plan based on full disclosure of the known problem, successive remedial steps undertaken in furtherance of the original objective are part of a single remediation for purpose of the statute of limitations, so that the remediator may not delay suit by classifying subsequent stages of remediation of the original problem as new remediations. See NYSEG, 766 F.3d at 236. In that sense, there can be “only be one remedial action at a site” with respect to the particular contamination addressed and remedy conceived. Id. When, as in NYSEG, the contamination to be addressed arises from a single source, and the operator undertakes to remedy that “underlying source of [] contamination,” 766 F.3d at 233 (citation omitted), the distinct steps taken in furtherance of that objective will constitute a single remediation. But a subsequent remediation, undertaken to address a different source of contamination outside the scope of the prior remediation, may constitute a separate and distinct remediation for statute of limitations purposes.
This interpretation comports more closely to the language and structure of the statute. CERCLA defines a “remedial action” as “those actions consistent with [a] permanent remedy . . . in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance into the environment.”
CERCLA’s implementing regulations confirm this understanding: typically, remediations are only undertaken after a lengthy process of data collection, the goal of which is to produce a comprehensive description of the “history/nature of waste handling” at the site and a “description of known contaminants.” See
In deciding whether to characterize a later remedial activity, for statute of limitations purposes, as a continuation of previously conducted remediation, or as a separate and distinct remediation entitled to a new six-year period for cost recovery, a helpful inquiry would be to examine whether the recent action (sought by the remediator to be characterized as a new remediation) falls within the remedial scope of the previous remediation as revealed in the record before the regulatory agency. In many cases, the record of the correspondence between the regulatory agencies and the original remediators will reveal much about the nature and scope of the problem to be remediated as it was initially conceived. See
We conclude that the district court’s reliance on the single-remediation principle asserted in NYSEG did not necessarily support its conclusion that MPM’s cost recovery action was untimely. We vacate the judgment and remand for further consideration. Consistent with our discussion above, the district court’s analysis on remand should address whether MPM’s remedial activity addressed to buried PCBs is part of the remediation begun by UCC in the 1990s, such that the instant suit filed in 2011 is untimtely, or should be deemed a separate and distinct remediation, entitled to a new six-year limitation period.
ii. Future Removal Costs
With respect to removal costs MPM may incur in the future, UCC challenges the district court’s declaratory judgment that UCC is liable for at least a share, as well as its allocation of 95% of those costs against UCC. UCC argues first that the possibility of future removal costs is too remote to present a constitutionally ripe controversy as to its liability for those costs, UCC Br. at 44–48; second, that the circumstances are “too speculative” to present a ripe controversy over the allocation of future costs, id. at 48–55; and, third, that cost allocation is not “prudentially ripe” because the issue would “benefit from [] further factual development” and because “[d]eferring allocation of hypothetical future removal costs would impose no real hardship on MPM,” id. at 55–56 (citation omitted).43 We disagree.
First, we find neither error nor abuse of discretion in the district court’s conclusion that the liability and allocation issues were constitutionally ripe for review due to the very high likelihood that MPM will incur future response costs. MPM III, 2017 WL 6408611, at *16–17. The doctrine of constitutional ripeness is “drawn from Article III limitations on judicial power” and “prevents a federal court from entangling itself in abstract disagreements over matters that are premature for review because the injury is merely speculative and may never occur.” In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liability Litig, 725 F.3d 65, 110 (2d Cir. 2013) (citations omitted).44 There is no merit to UCC’s contention that it is speculative whether MPM will incur costs to deal with the PCB contamination it has uncovered at the Site. To the contrary, it is undisputed that MPM plans to continue with its wastewater treatment facility upgrade, which will “require that MPM respond appropriately to PCBs in the soils” in that area. MPM III, 2017 WL 6408611, at *17.45 MPM submitted a plan for PCB management during its wastewater treatment upgrade, which anticipates the necessity of the disposal of contaminated soil, along with other measures intended to “minimize the risk of spreading contamination,” and the WVDEP has approved that plan. There is a substantial likelihood that, depending on how these plans progress, at least some actions MPM will undertake to deal with UCC’s contamination of the Site — the extent of which is currently “unknown” — will be “clean-up measures taken in response to immediate threats to public health and safety,” which are properly characterized as removals. NYSEG, 766 F.3d at 230–31.46 Accordingly, we conclude
b. Prudential ripeness
The district court also correctly concluded that the issue of UCC’s liability and responsibility for MPM’s future response costs was prudentially ripe. The doctrine of prudential ripeness requires a court to ask “whether the claim is fit for judicial resolution” and “whether and to what extent the parties will endure hardship if decision is withheld,” and permits a court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction upon determining that “the case will be better decided later.” MTBE, 725 F.3d at 110 (brackets and citations omitted). The district court determined that the issue was fit for judicial resolution because the evidence necessary to determine UCC’s responsibility for MPM’s future response costs was “before the Court and unlikely to change.” MPM III, 2017 WL 6408611, at *18. In particular, the court noted that “the two factors that weigh most heavily in [its] allocation of responsibility in this case — UCC’s status as the sole entity responsible for using and disposing of PCBs at the Site and MPM’s delay in reporting its discovery of PCBs to environmental regulators — are settled.” Id. Further, the district court determined that it would be “unjust” to “require MPM to wait for allocation until MPM has ascertained [the extent of its] future PCB response costs,” given the “considerable” cost and time the parties had spent litigating this case, and that determining the parties’ respective financial responsibility for future cleanup costs without delay — as CERCLA requires — would “advance CERCLA’s ‘dual goals of cleaning up hazardous waste and holding polluters responsible for their actions.’” Id. (quoting NYSEG, 766 F.3d at 220).
UCC argues that the issue is not fit for resolution because “many facts relevant to the parties’ relative responsibility for future removal costs are inherently unknowable and subject to substantial uncertainty” as “many of the circumstances of a future cleanup are unknown.” UCC Br. at
We are not persuaded. CERCLA provides a district court tasked with allocating responsibility for cleanup costs between potential responsible parties with “broad discretion to balance the equities in the interests of justice,” and “does not limit courts to any particular list of factors” to consider when making that determination. Bedford Affiliates v. Sills, 156 F.3d 416, 429 (2d Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by W.R. Grace, 559 F.3d at 89–90. The district court was clear that the two factors on which it primarily relied were (a) UCC’s sole responsibility for the PCB contamination at the Site, and (b) MPM’s delay in cooperating with regulators after its discovery of PCB-contaminated soil. MPM III, 2017 WL 6408611, at *18. The district court found that the evidence supporting these two determinative factors was “unlikely to change.” Id. The district court had a sound basis for concluding that UCC’s insistence on uncertainties was exaggerated and did not call for delay in adjudicating allocation. Id.49
As the district court pointed out, its declaration of liability for and allocation of MPM’s future response costs does not directly establish any financial liability. The court’s order “[left] open [] the issue of whether any costs MPM incurs in responding to PCBs are recoverable under CERCLA,” so that “if and when MPM brings an action to recover future removal costs, UCC will be entitled to raise appropriate objections.” MPM III, 2017 WL 6408611, at *18.51 What the district court’s order did finalize was that, by reason of UCC’s sole responsibility for the substantial levels of PCB contamination at the Site, it is responsible (notwithstanding MPM’s delay) for 95% of the cost of any appropriate, CERCLA-compliant removals designed to address that contamination. As explained below, that conclusion was well supported by the record, and the district court was under no obligation to delay decision and require the parties to come back to court at some future date to litigate the allocation of financial responsibility for UCC’s pollution.
UCC further argues that the district court’s decision to allocate 95% of MPM’s future removal costs to UCC was an abuse of discretion. UCC Br. at 58–70. The thrust of UCC’s argument is that the district court did not afford sufficient weight to several factors on which other courts have relied when making similar allocation determinations. UCC argues that the district court failed to take into account (a) that MPM assumed the risk of future cleanup costs by purchasing the Site without fully investigating potential contamination there, id. at 59–61, (b) that, by virtue of the documents MPM received before executing its purchase of the site, it was on objective notice of the PCB contamination, which should warrant a higher allocation to MPM under the doctrine of caveat emptor, id. at 62–67, and (c) the possibility that “future PCB cleanups . . . could result in substantial economic benefits to MPM,” id. at 68–69.52
A district court’s allocation of response costs under CERCLA is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Goodrich Corp. v. Town of Middlebury, 311 F.3d 154, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Consolidation Coal Co., 345 F.3d 409, 412 (6th Cir. 2003) (same). The allocation of CERCLA response costs is an “equitable determination based on the district court’s discretionary selection of the appropriate equitable factors in a given case.” Goodrich, 311 F.3d at 170. The statute does not require district courts to consider or give weight to any particular allocation factor, but rather permits the court to determine which factors are most relevant to a given case. NCR Corp. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., 768 F.3d 682, 700 (7th Cir. 2014) (“[W]e have stressed that the district court’s discretion [in allocating CERCLA costs] is broad, both when it determines how much weight to place on any given equitable factor before the court, and also when it chooses which factors are pertinent at all for the case before it.”).53
UCC’s argument that the district court should have assigned more weight to certain allocation factors is therefore unavailing. UCC does not argue that the district court’s cost allocation “rests on an error of law (such as application of the wrong legal principle) or a clearly erroneous factual finding,” and it is clear that the court’s decision was “within the range of permissible decisions.” Goodrich, 311 F.3d at 169. Accordingly, we conclude that the district
C. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the district court’s July 7, 2016 grant of partial summary judgment holding that MPM’s claim for recovery of remediation costs is time-barred under
Notes
In 1987, Dailey wrote to UCC‘s legal counsel Carol Dudnick, asking Dudnick whether UCC should revise one of its EPA submissions — the “Notification of Hazardous Waste” form — to disclose the possibility that UCC had dumped PCB-laden waste at the inactive disposal sites at Sistersville. Dudnick advised Dailey that it was unnecessary to add PCBs to the form because the information on PCB contamination was “speculative at best,” because there was no documentation that anyone at UCC had actual knowledge of PCB disposal at the site, and because UCC‘s monitoring and testing had not detected any PCBs. Id. at 89.
The court further rejected MPM‘s argument that the statute of limitations should be tolled under the doctrine of equitable tolling, holding that “MPM has failed to present evidence showing that it has pursued its rights diligently” because MPM had failed to take action after receiving the May 2004 ENVIRON report recommending further testing for PCBs at the site. Id. at *17–19. (MPM challenges each of these conclusions on appeal. MPM Br. at 16–45.)
The NYSEG opinion also cited Yankee Gas Servs. Co. v. UGI Utils., Inc., 616 F. Supp. 2d 228 (D. Conn. 2009) in support of its single-remediation principle. However, while the court in that case noted that “courts have generally held that there can be only one . . . remedial action per facility, regardless of the number of phases in which the clean-up occurs,” see id. at 270, that statement had no relevance to the court‘s holding that several of the claims were time-barred because, in that case, all of the response projects under consideration were commenced more than six years before the plaintiff filed suit. See id. at 269 (noting that the plaintiff filed suit in September 2006); id. at 271 (noting that the most recent response project at the Norwalk site was commenced in 1999); id. at 274 (noting that the most recent response project at the Willimantic site was commenced in 1997).
Moreover, UCC argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to include in its declaratory judgment a contingency provision which would authorize the parties to relitigate the allocation if “new facts or future events render the current division inequitable,” citing to the Third Circuit’s decision in Beazer East, Inc. v. Mead Corp., 412 F.3d 429, 449 (3d Cir. 2005) (noting that “[s]uch contingency provisions are generally favored in CERCLA contribution actions”). UCC Br. at 57–58. MPM points out, MPM Reply Br. at 39–40, that the Third Circuit held that such a provision would be appropriate in Beazer because, in that case, both the plaintiff and the defendant were potentially responsible for the contamination, and that the district court’s “allocation would no longer be fair if any required remediation is primarily or exclusively directed to those areas of the Site where [the plaintiff] is responsible for the majority of the contamination.” Beazer, 412 F.3d at 449 (quotation marks omitted). We agree that Beazer involved drastically different circumstances and that here, because UCC is the only party responsible for PCB contamination at the Site, and because no future developments will alter that fact, the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to include such a contingency provision. But see infra at 80–81.