The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jerome B. Simandle United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of the Settling Work Defendants*fn1 [Docket Item 109] to file a Second Amended Third-Party Complaint (the "Proposed Amended Complaint" or "PAC"). This is an extensively litigated Superfund case in which the vast majority of parties have settled and the lone claims remaining are those asserted by the Settling Work Defendants against Alumax Mill Products, Inc. ("Alumax"), the sole non-settling Defendant.
During the pendency of this litigation, in 2007, the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128 (2007), a case which clarified the statutory avenues under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") through which potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") can seek contribution and cost recovery from other PRPs relating to the remediation of hazardous waste sites. The Settling Work Defendants seek to amend their Third-Party Complaint in order to bring their claims in line with the changes in CERCLA jurisprudence brought about by Atlantic Research. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the Settling Work Defendants' motion.
A. Remediation of the Helen Kramer Landfill
The Court reviewed the extensive factual and procedural background of this litigation in detail in its November 19, 2008 Opinion [Docket Item 106], and it will review herein only those facts relevant to the disposition of the Settling Work Defendants' motion. This case arises out of two consolidated actions brought by the United States and the State of New Jersey pursuant to section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), to recover costs incurred in the remediation of the Helen Kramer Landfill (or "Landfill") in Mantua, New Jersey. The Helen Kramer Landfill is "a major Superfund site at which the federal government and the State of New Jersey . . . incurred substantial costs . . . to remedy conditions at the landfill and its environs." United States v. Kramer, 953 F. Supp. 592, 595 (D.N.J. 1997).
The scope of the governmental remediation efforts, the resultant cost recovery lawsuits, and eventual settlement among direct and third-party defendants have been more fully described in multiple opinions by this Court. See, e.g., id.; Kramer, 19 F. Supp. 2d 273; United States v. Kramer, No. 89-4340, 2008 WL 5046846 (D.N.J. Nov. 19, 2008). In brief summary:
The Helen Kramer Landfill in Mantua Township, New Jersey, was declared a federal Superfund site and placed upon the national priorities list by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq. The United States undertook the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, the Remedial Design, and remedy construction, which was largely completed in 1994. These remedial costs, together with enforcement costs and prejudgment interest to January, 1998, have amounted to approximately $123 million. The United States commenced suit in 1989 to recover all response and remedial costs under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), and the government had by 1997 filed a Third Amended Complaint against the Direct Defendants alleged to be generators and transporters of hazardous substances deposited at the Landfill. After extensive litigation and settlement efforts, the United States and Direct Defendants reached agreement upon a proposed Consent Decree to resolve the United States' claims against all viable Direct Defendants and a wide majority of the Third-Party Defendants.
Similarly, the State DEP commenced suit in 1989 and reached substantial agreement with a subgroup of the Settling Defendants to enable operation and maintenance functions at the Site to be transferred to these settling parties in 1997. The Site had been turned over to the NJDEP for oversight and maintenance on May 11, 1994. Kramer, 19 F. Supp. 2d at 276-77. The Court approved of and entered the federal and state Consent Decrees in an Opinion and Order dated September 3, 1998. Id. at 289.
Pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decrees, the Settling Work Defendants (along with the other settling Defendants) have paid settlement funds as reimbursement for the Government's response costs into the Helen Kramer Landfill Superfund Site Qualified Settlement Fund Trust. (U.S. Consent Decree ¶ 4.) Additionally, the Settling Work Defendants have made payments to the Helen Kramer Landfill Superfund Site Environmental Remediation Trust, which was established not for reimbursement of past costs, but in order to fund ongoing and future studies and investigations at the Landfill for the EPA. (Id.)
As the Court noted, supra, the only claims that remain in this case are those asserted by the Settling Work Defendants against Alumax, the sole non-settling PRP. In their original Third Party Complaint (and in the subsequent amendments to that pleading), the Settling Work Defendants asserted a claim for contribution against Alumax pursuant to section 113(f)(1) of CERCLA, a claim for declaratory relief regarding Alumax's liability for future response costs pursuant to section 113(g)(2) of CERCLA, and a contribution claim pursuant to the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act.*fn2
As the Court explains in greater detail, infra, in 2007, the Supreme Court, in Atlantic Research, resolved a Circuit split concerning which statutory vehicles under CERCLA are available to a PRP which has entered into a settlement with the Government or incurred cleanup costs, and which seeks contribution or cost recovery from other PRPs. The Supreme Court held that a PRP that has incurred cleanup costs may assert a claim under section 107(a) of CERCLA -- which provides a cause of action for "cost recovery (as distinct from contribution)," 127 S.Ct. at 2338 -- against another PRP. Id. at 2338 n.6. However, with regard to one of the precise matters at issue in this suit -- where a "PRP . . . sustain[s] expenses pursuant to a consent decree following a suit under § 106 or § 107(a)" -- the Court did not "decide whether these compelled costs of response are recoverable under § 113(f), § 107(a), or both." Id. Following Atlantic Research, the ...