## Facts

- AlliedSignal operated a coal tar products plant in Ironton, Ohio, and disposed of plant wastes at the Goldcamp Disposal Area (GDA), an abandoned sand and gravel pit.
- Amcast operated a foundry in Ironton and also disposed of wastes at the GDA.
- The EPA placed the GDA on the National Priorities List, triggering federal oversight and remediation requirements.
- AlliedSignal entered into two EPA administrative orders/agreements to investigate hazards at the GDA and perform cleanup work.
- By December 31, 1994, AlliedSignal had incurred more than $12 million in response costs and projected substantially higher total cleanup costs.
- AlliedSignal performed response actions including installation of a semi-permeable cap and other remedial measures under EPA direction.
- AlliedSignal sued Amcast under CERCLA seeking recovery and allocation of portions of the response costs; Amcast counterclaimed for contribution.
- Evidence showed Amcast contributed a small share of hazardous substances by toxicity (about 2–3%) but a larger share of total waste volume (about 28%).

## Issues

1. Whether CERCLA may be applied retroactively to disposal conduct occurring before CERCLA’s enactment.
2. Whether CERCLA, as applied to the site and the parties’ conduct, exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause authority.
3. Whether Amcast was liable as a potentially responsible party under CERCLA for arranging disposal of hazardous substances at the GDA.
4. Whether AlliedSignal’s incurred response costs were necessary and consistent with the National Contingency Plan.
5. How cleanup costs should be equitably allocated between AlliedSignal and Amcast, including treatment of cap-related costs.
6. Whether AlliedSignal could recover attorney’s fees attributable to duplicative trial preparation caused by Amcast’s untimely continuance request.

## Decision

- The court held CERCLA liability applies retroactively to pre-1980 disposal conduct and rejected the Commerce Clause challenge.
- The court found Amcast liable as a PRP for arranging disposal of hazardous substances at a facility with a release or threatened release.
- The court found AlliedSignal’s response actions were necessary and NCP-consistent, emphasizing EPA’s close direction and supervision.
- On equitable allocation, the court assigned Amcast:
  - 2% of AlliedSignal’s response costs other than cap-related costs.
  - 28% of the costs associated with the cap.
- The court entered declaratory relief applying the same allocation percentages to future response costs and awarded prejudgment interest on allocated past costs.
- The court awarded AlliedSignal $3,060 in attorney’s fees for duplicative trial preparation necessitated by Amcast’s late continuance request.

## Legal Principles

- CERCLA may impose liability for hazardous waste disposal that occurred before CERCLA’s enactment when Congress intended the statute to address inactive hazardous waste sites.
- CERCLA’s regulation of releases and allocation of cleanup costs falls within Congress’s Commerce Clause authority when the regulated activity substantially affects interstate commerce.
- A party is liable under CERCLA as a PRP when it arranged for disposal of hazardous substances at a facility from which a release or threatened release caused response costs.
- Response costs are recoverable under CERCLA when they are necessary and consistent with the National Contingency Plan; EPA-directed work supports this showing.
- In CERCLA contribution, courts may allocate costs using equitable factors, including relative toxicity/hazardous character of wastes, relative volume, and the parties’ roles in remediation.
- Courts may award targeted attorney’s fees as a sanction where litigation conduct causes unnecessary, duplicative preparation.

## Conclusion

The court upheld CERCLA’s retroactive application and constitutionality, found Amcast liable as a PRP, and equitably allocated cleanup costs by assigning Amcast a small share of most response costs but a larger share of cap-related costs based on waste volume, while also setting the same percentages for future costs and awarding a modest fee sanction tied to a late continuance request.


AlliedSignal, Inc. v. Amcast Int'l Corp., 177 F. Supp. 2d 713 (S.D. Ohio 2001)