Consolidation Coal Company v. Georgia Power Company

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 20, 2015
• Docket: 13-1603
• Status: Published

Opinion

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1603

CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,

Defendant – Appellant,

v.

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY; AMERICAN ELECTRIC CORPORATION; TOWN OF BLACKSTONE, VIRGINIA; BONNER ELECTRIC, INC.; CHEVRON MINING, INC.; COHEN AND GREEN SALVAGE COMPANY, INC.; OWEN ELECTRIC STEEL COMPANY OF SOUTH CAROLINA and/or SMI-OWEN STEEL COMPANY, INC. and/or SMI STEEL, d/b/a CMC Steel South Carolina, an Alabama corporation operating a steel plant in Cayce, South Carolina and/or Commercial Metals Company as successors in interest to SMI Steel; COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC., as successor-in-interest for Abex Friction Products Division of Abex, Inc.; COTTER ELECTRIC COMPANY; CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE; ENDICOTT CLAY PRODUCTS COMPANY; HAGERSTOWN LIGHT DEPARTMENT; HUNTSVILLE UTILITIES; JET ELECTRIC MOTOR CO., INC.; KELLY GENERATOR & EQUIPMENT, INC. AND/OR KELLY ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION, INC., f/k/a Kelly & Bishop Electrical Construction, Inc. and/or John E. Kelly & Sons Electrical Construction, Inc.; LAFARGE MID-ATLANTIC, LLC AND/OR LAFARGE MID-ATLANTIC, INC. AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO OR REDLAND GENSTAR, INC. AND GENSTAR STONE PRODUCTS, INC.; LEWIS ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., INC.; CITY OF MASCOUTAH, ILLINOIS; M-P ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.; NEW SOUTHERN OF ROCKY MOUNT, INC.; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES; P.C. CAMPANA, INC.; PHOENIX SOLUTIONS COMPANY, as successor in interest to Plasma Energy Company; SURRY-YADKIN ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION; TENNESSEE ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC, INC. OR TENNESSEE ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC, a/k/a Tennessee Associated Electric Holdings, Inc.; VENTECH ENGINEERS, INC., AND/OR VENTECH PROCESS EQUIPMENT, INC. AND/OR VENTECH EQUIPMENT INC. AND/OR THE VENTECH COMPANIES; W.R. SCHOFIELD CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.; OWEN ELECTRIC STEEL COMPANY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; VEOLIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES WASTE-TO-ENERGY, f/k/a Montenay Power Corporation; INTERNATIONAL POWER MACHINERY COMPANY; 3M COMPANY; ALCAN PRIMARY PRODUCTS CORPORATION; ALCOA, INCORPORATED; AMERICAN SKIING COMPANY; APOGEE COAL COMPANY, LLC; APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY; ARKEMA, INC., f/k/a Pennwalt Corporation; ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY; BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY; BASF CORPORATION; BASSETT FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INCORPORATED; BEDFORD RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.; BLUE RIDGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.; BROAD RIVER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.; BRUCE- MERRILEES ELECTRIC COMPANY; BUIST ELECTRIC, INC.; CAPE HATTERAS ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION; CARGILL, INCORPORATED; CARLISLE SYNTEC, INCORPORATED; CARR AND DUFF, INC.; CATERPILLAR, INCORPORATED; CBS CORPORATION; UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; UNITED STATES DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL; VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER COMPANY (VEPCO); VULCAN CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; WARREN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED; WARTBURG COLLEGE; WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION; WEST PENN POWER COMPANY; WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY; CENTRAL REGIONAL HOSPITAL; CHEMICAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION; CHERRY HOSPITAL; CHRISTUS HEALTH; CLEVELAND ELECTRIC COMPANY; COGENTRIX ENERGY, LLC; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; CONSUMERS ENERGY; COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; CSX RESIDUAL COMPANY; DANNY CORPORATION; DEAN'S LIGHT BOX, INC.; DELMARVA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY; DIXON LUMBER COMPANY, INCORPORATED; DOMTAR PAPER COMPANY, LLC; DOREY ELECTRIC COMPANY; DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC; DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY; EAST KENTUCKY POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.; ELECTRIC CONTROL EQUIPMENT CO.; ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SERVICES, INCORPORATED; ERACHEM COMILOG, INC.; FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY; FOREMOST ELECTRIC & TRANSMISSION, INC.; FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; FURMAN UNIVERSITY; G&S MOTOR EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GENERAL

2 EXTRUSIONS, INC.; GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICAN, INC.; GLADIEUX TRADING & MARKETING CO., LP, AND/OR LIMITED CORPORATION; GLENWOOD RESOLUTION AUTHORITY, INC.; GREEN CIRCLE GROWERS, INC.; GREENWOOD MILLS, INCORPORATED; GUERNSEY-MUSKINGUM ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC.; HAINES AND KIBBLEHOUSE, INC.; THE HOLLADAY CORPORATION, a/k/a Holladay Property Services Midwest, Inc.; HUDSON LIGHT AND POWER DEPARTMENT; IES COMMERCIAL, INC., AND/OR INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL SERVICES, INC.; IMERYS CARBONATES, LLC; INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY; INTERTAPE POLYMER GROUP, INCORPORATED; CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA; JESSOP STEEL, LLC; KINGSPORT POWER COMPANY; KOBE COPPER PRODUCTS, INC.; KOCH INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INCORPORATED; CITY OF LAKELAND, FLORIDA; LOCKWOOD'S ELECTRIC MOTOR SERVICE; TOWN OF LOUISBURG, NORTH CAROLINA; LWB REFRACTORIES COMPANY; MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INCORPORATED; MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY; MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY; NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION; N.L. INDUSTRIES, INC.; NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY; NORTH GEORGIA ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION; HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED; NUCOR CORPORATION; O'BERRY NEURO-MEDICAL CENTER; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION; PACTIV CORPORATION; PALMETTO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.; PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INCORPORATED; PHARMACIA CORPORATION; POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY; PPG INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION; ROYAL STREET JUNK COMPANY, INC.; SANTEE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED; SARA LEE CORPORATION; SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY; SOUTH CENTRAL POWER COMPANY; SOUTHLAND ELECTRICAL SUPPLY, INC.; ST. JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; SUMTER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED, a/k/a SECO Energy; T AND R ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.; TENNESSEE ELECTRO MINERALS, INC.; TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY; TRAP ROCK, INC.; TREDEGAR FILM PRODUCTS CORPORATION; TRI-STATE ARMATURE & ELECTRICAL WORKS, INC.; UNIMIN CORPORATION; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; UNITED STATES AIR FORCE; SALES TRANSACTION DEFENDANTS LIAISON; JOHNSON/KERNER LIAISON GROUP,

Defendants,

BARNES & POWELL ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.; TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC; MELINZ REBAR, INC.; BABSON COLLEGE; VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY; BATESVILLE CASKET COMPANY, INCORPORATED; BAY MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL CORPORATION; CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS FL,

3 LLC; CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA; DACCO INCORPORATED; DAVIS. JERRY INC.; DELAWARE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED; E. LUKE GREENE COMPANY, INC.; J.C. BLAIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; KERR-MCGEE CORPORATION; MAGNETIC METALS CORPORATION; MASS. ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION CO.; NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION; NOVARTIS CORPORATION; ROBERT BOSCH LLC; SHO-ME POWER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE; SEABROOK ENTERPRISES, INC.; ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE; TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, INC.; THE NORTH CAROLINA GRANITE CORPORATION; THE ROUSE COMPANY, LLC; THOMASVILLE FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; TRULAND CORPORATION; UPS GROUND FREIGHT, INC.; VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY IN THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; EMMA L. BIXBY MEDICAL CENTER; GENCORP, INC.; PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION; RILEY POWER, INC.; THE NATIONAL LIME AND STONE COMPANY; TIMKEN US LLC; WOODSTREAM CORPORATION; FABRI-KAL CORPORATION; HENKELS & MCCOY, INC.; OHIO VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; SAINT AUGUSTINE'S COLLEGE; SOUTHERN ALLOY CORPORATION,

Third Party Defendants.

No. 13-1617

Plaintiff – Appellant,

PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.,

Third Party Plaintiff,

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY; AMERICAN ELECTRIC CORPORATION; TOWN OF BLACKSTONE, VIRGINIA; BONNER ELECTRIC, INC.; CHEVRON MINING, INC., as successor-in-interest to Pittsburg & Midway

4 Coal Mining Co.; OWEN ELECTRIC STEEL COMPANY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, and/or SMI OWEN STEEL COMPANY, INC., and/or SMI STEEL,d/b/a CMC Steel South Carolina and/or Commercial Metals Company; COHEN AND GREEN SALVAGE COMPANY, INC.; COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC., as successor-in-interest for Abex Friction Products Division of Abex, Inc.; COTTER ELECTRIC COMPANY; CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE; ENDICOTT CLAY PRODUCTS COMPANY; HAGERSTOWN LIGHT DEPARTMENT; HUNTSVILLE UTILITIES; JET ELECTRIC MOTOR CO., INC.; LAFARGE MID-ATLANTIC, LLC AND/OR LAFARGE MID-ATLANTIC, INC. AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO OR REDLAND GENSTAR, INC. AND GENSTAR STONE PRODUCTS, INC.; LEWIS ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., INC.; CITY OF MASCOUTAH, ILLINOIS; M-P ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.; NEW SOUTHERN OF ROCKY MOUNT, INC.; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES; P.C. CAMPANA, INC.; PHOENIX SOLUTIONS COMPANY, as successor in interest to Plasma Energy Company; SURRY-YADKIN ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION; TENNESSEE ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC, INC. OR TENNESSEE ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC, a/k/a Tennessee Associated Electric Holdings, Inc.; VENTECH ENGINEERS, INC., AND/OR VENTECH PROCESS EQUIPMENT, INC. AND/OR VENTECH EQUIPMENT INC. AND/OR THE VENTECH COMPANIES; VEOLIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES WASTE-TO-ENERGY, f/k/a Montenay Power Corporation; W.R. SCHOFIELD CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.; KELLY GENERATOR & EQUIPMENT, INC. AND/OR KELLY ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION, INC., f/k/a Kelly & Bishop Electrical Construction, Inc. and/or John E. Kelly & Sons Electrical Construction, Inc.; OWEN ELECTRIC STEEL COMPANY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; 3M COMPANY; ALCAN PRIMARY PRODUCTS CORPORATION; ALCOA, INCORPORATED; AMERICAN SKIING COMPANY; APOGEE COAL COMPANY, L.L.C.; APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY; ARKEMA, INC.; ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY; BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY; BASF CORPORATION; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INCORPORATED; BEDFORD RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.; BLUE RIDGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.; BROAD RIVER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.; BRUCE-MERRILEES ELECTRIC COMPANY; BUIST ELECTRIC, INC.; CAPE HATTERAS ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION; CARGILL, INCORPORATED; CARLISLE SYNTEC, INCORPORATED; DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC.; CARR AND DUFF, INC.; CATERPILLAR, INCORPORATED; CBS CORPORATION; CENTRAL REGIONAL HOSPITAL; CHEMICAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION; CHERRY HOSPITAL; CHRISTUS HEALTH; CLEVELAND ELECTRIC COMPANY; COGENTRIX ENERGY, LLC; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY; COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; CSX RESIDUAL COMPANY; DANNY CORPORATION; DEAN'S LIGHT BOX, INC.; DELMARVA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY; DIXON LUMBER COMPANY, INCORPORATED; DOMTAR PAPER COMPANY, LLC; DOREY ELECTRIC COMPANY; DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC; DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY; EAST KENTUCKY

5 POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.; ELECTRIC CONTROL EQUIPMENT CO.; ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SERVICES, INCORPORATED; ERACHEM COMILOG, INC.; FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY; FOREMOST ELECTRIC & TRANSMISSION, INC.; FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; FURMAN UNIVERSITY; G&S MOTOR EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GENERAL EXTRUSIONS, INC.; GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICAN, INC.; GLENWOOD RESOLUTION AUTHORITY, INC.; GREEN CIRCLE GROWERS, INC.; GREENWOOD MILLS, INCORPORATED; GUERNSEY-MUSKINGUM ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.; HAINES AND KIBBLEHOUSE, INC.; HUDSON LIGHT AND POWER DEPARTMENT; IMERYS CARBONATES, LLC; INTERNATIONAL POWER MACHINERY COMPANY; INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY; INTERTAPE POLYMER GROUP, INCORPORATED; KINGSPORT POWER COMPANY; KOBE COPPER PRODUCTS, INC.; KOCH INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INCORPORATED; CITY OF LAKELAND, FLORIDA; LOCKWOOD'S ELECTRIC MOTOR SERVICE; TOWN OF LOUISBURG, NORTH CAROLINA; LWB REFRACTORIES COMPANY; MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INCORPORATED; MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY; MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY; NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION, d/b/a National Grid; NL INDUSTRIES, INC.; NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; NORTH GEORGIA ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION; NUCOR CORPORATION; O'BERRY NEURO- MEDICAL CENTER; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION; PACTIV CORPORATION; PALMETTO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.; PHARMACIA CORPORATION; POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY; PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION; ROYAL STREET JUNK COMPANY, INC.; SANTEE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED; SARA LEE CORPORATION, d/b/a Hillshire Farms; SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY; SOUTH CENTRAL POWER COMPANY; SOUTHLAND ELECTRICAL SUPPLY, INC.; ST. JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; SUMTER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED, d/b/a SECO Energy; T AND R ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.; TENNESSEE ELECTRO-MINERALS, INC.; TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY; TRAP ROCK, INC.; TREDEGAR FILM PRODUCTS CORPORATION; TRI-STATE ARMATURE & ELECTRICAL WORKS, INC.; UNIMIN CORPORATION; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; UNITED STATES DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER COMPANY; VULCAN CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, L. P.; WARREN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED; WARTBURG COLLEGE; WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION; WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY; WEST PENN POWER COMPANY; SALES TRANSACTION DEFENDANTS LIAISON; VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY IN THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED; JOHNSON/KERNER LIAISON GROUP; WHEELABRATOR TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED, CELANESE CORPORATION, THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, GLADIEUX TRADING & MARKETING COMPANY, L.P., HOLLADAY

6 PROPERTY SERVICES MIDWEST, INC., INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL SERVICES, INC., JESSOP STEEL COMPANY, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY IS A CONSTITUENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, PEACE COLLEGE OF RALEIGH, INC., UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, A CONSTITUENT INSTITUTION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AND POWER MACHINERY COMPANY,

TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY; BABSON COLLEGE; BARNES & POWELL ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.; BATESVILLE CASKET COMPANY, INCORPORATED; BAY MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL CORPORATION; CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS FL, LLC; CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA; DACCO INCORPORATED; DAVIS. JERRY INC.; DELAWARE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED; E. LUKE GREENE COMPANY, INC.; FABRI-KAL CORPORATION; HENKELS & MCCOY, INC.; IES COMMERCIAL, INC., AND/OR INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL SERVICES, INC.; J.C. BLAIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; KERR-MCGEE CORPORATION; MAGNETIC METALS CORPORATION; MASS. ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION CO.; MELINZ REBAR, INC.; NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION; NOVARTIS CORPORATION; OHIO VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH LLC; SHO-ME POWER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE; SAINT AUGUSTINE'S COLLEGE; SEABROOK ENTERPRISES, INC.; SOUTHERN ALLOY CORPORATION; ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE; TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, INC.; THE NORTH CAROLINA GRANITE CORPORATION; THE ROUSE COMPANY, LLC; THOMASVILLE FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; TRULAND CORPORATION; UPS GROUND FREIGHT, INC.; GENCORP, INC.; PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION; THE NATIONAL LIME AND STONE COMPANY; TIMKEN US LLC; WOODSTREAM CORPORATION; EMMA L. BIXBY MEDICAL CENTER; RILEY POWER, INC.,

No. 13-1664

7 v.

DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Incorporated,

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY; AMERICAN ELECTRIC CORPORATION; TOWN OF BLACKSTONE, VIRGINIA; BONNER ELECTRIC, INC.; CHEVRON MINING, INC., as successor-in-interest to Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Company; COHEN AND GREEN SALVAGE COMPANY, INC.; OWEN ELECTRIC STEEL COMPANY OF SOUTH CAROLINA and/or SMI- OWEN STEEL COMPANY, INC. and/or SMI STEEL, d/b/a CMC Steel South Carolina, an Alabama corporation operating a steel plant in Cayce, South Carolina and/or Commercial Metals Company as successors in interest to SMI Steel; COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC., as successor-in-interest for Abex Friction Products Division of Abex, Inc.; COTTER ELECTRIC COMPANY; CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE; ENDICOTT CLAY PRODUCTS COMPANY; HAGERSTOWN LIGHT DEPARTMENT; HUNTSVILLE UTILITIES; JET ELECTRIC MOTOR CO., INC.; KELLY GENERATOR & EQUIPMENT, INC. AND/OR KELLY ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION, INC., f/k/a Kelly & Bishop Electrical Construction, Inc. and/or John E. Kelly & Sons Electrical Construction, Inc.; LAFARGE MID-ATLANTIC, LLC AND/OR LAFARGE MID-ATLANTIC, INC. AS SUCCESSOR-IN- INTEREST TO OR REDLAND GENSTAR, INC. AND GENSTAR STONE PRODUCTS, INC.; LEWIS ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., INC.; CITY OF MASCOUTAH, ILLINOIS; M-P ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.; NEW SOUTHERN OF ROCKY MOUNT, INC.; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES; P.C. CAMPANA, INC.; PHOENIX SOLUTIONS COMPANY, as successor in interest to Plasma Energy Company; SURRY-YADKIN ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION; TENNESSEE ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC, INC. OR TENNESSEE ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC, a/k/a Tennessee Associated Electric Holdings, Inc.; VENTECH ENGINEERS, INC., AND/OR VENTECH PROCESS EQUIPMENT, INC. AND/OR VENTECH EQUIPMENT INC. AND/OR THE VENTECH COMPANIES; W.R. SCHOFIELD CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.; OWEN ELECTRIC STEEL COMPANY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; VEOLIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES WASTE-TO-ENERGY,

8 f/k/a Montenay Power Corporation; INTERNATIONAL POWER MACHINERY COMPANY; 3M COMPANY; ALCAN PRIMARY PRODUCTS CORPORATION; ALCOA, INCORPORATED; AMERICAN SKIING COMPANY; APOGEE COAL COMPANY, LLC; APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY; ARKEMA, INC., f/k/a Pennwalt Corporation; ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY; BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY; BASF CORPORATION; BASSETT FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INCORPORATED; BEDFORD RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.; BLUE RIDGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.; BROAD RIVER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.; BRUCE-MERRILEES ELECTRIC COMPANY; BUIST ELECTRIC, INC.; CAPE HATTERAS ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION; CARGILL, INCORPORATED; CARLISLE SYNTEC, INCORPORATED; CARR AND DUFF, INC.; CATERPILLAR, INCORPORATED; CBS CORPORATION; UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; UNITED STATES DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL; VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY (VEPCO); VULCAN CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; WARREN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED; WARTBURG COLLEGE; WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION; WEST PENN POWER COMPANY; WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY; CENTRAL REGIONAL HOSPITAL; CHEMICAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION; CHERRY HOSPITAL; CHRISTUS HEALTH; CLEVELAND ELECTRIC COMPANY; COGENTRIX ENERGY, LLC; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY; CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY; COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; CSX RESIDUAL COMPANY; DANNY CORPORATION; DEAN'S LIGHT BOX, INC.; DELMARVA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY; DIXON LUMBER COMPANY, INCORPORATED; DOMTAR PAPER COMPANY, LLC; DOREY ELECTRIC COMPANY; DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC; DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY; EAST KENTUCKY POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.; ELECTRIC CONTROL EQUIPMENT CO.; ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SERVICES, INCORPORATED; ERACHEM COMILOG, INC.; FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY; FOREMOST ELECTRIC & TRANSMISSION, INC.; FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; FURMAN UNIVERSITY; G&S MOTOR EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GENERAL EXTRUSIONS, INC.; GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICAN, INC.; GLADIEUX TRADING & MARKETING CO., LP, AND/OR LIMITED CORPORATION; GLENWOOD RESOLUTION AUTHORITY, INC.; GREEN CIRCLE GROWERS, INC.; GREENWOOD MILLS, INCORPORATED; GUERNSEY-MUSKINGUM ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC.; HAINES AND KIBBLEHOUSE, INC.; THE HOLLADAY CORPORATION, a/k/a Holladay Property Services Midwest, Inc.; HUDSON LIGHT AND POWER DEPARTMENT; IES COMMERCIAL, INC., AND/OR INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL SERVICES, INC.; IMERYS CARBONATES, LLC; INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY; INTERTAPE POLYMER GROUP,

9 INCORPORATED; CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA; JESSOP STEEL, LLC; KINGSPORT POWER COMPANY; KOBE COPPER PRODUCTS, INC.; KOCH INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INCORPORATED; CITY OF LAKELAND, FLORIDA; LOCKWOOD'S ELECTRIC MOTOR SERVICE; TOWN OF LOUISBURG, NORTH CAROLINA; LWB REFRACTORIES COMPANY; MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INCORPORATED; MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY; MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY; NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION; N.L. INDUSTRIES, INC.; NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY; NORTH GEORGIA ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION; HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED; NUCOR CORPORATION; O'BERRY NEURO-MEDICAL CENTER; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION; PACTIV CORPORATION; PALMETTO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.; PHARMACIA CORPORATION; POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY; PPG INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION; ROYAL STREET JUNK COMPANY, INC.; SANTEE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED; SARA LEE CORPORATION; SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY; SOUTH CENTRAL POWER COMPANY; SOUTHLAND ELECTRICAL SUPPLY, INC.; ST. JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; SUMTER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED, a/k/a SECO Energy; T AND R ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.; TENNESSEE ELECTRO MINERALS, INC.; TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY; TRAP ROCK, INC.; TREDEGAR FILM PRODUCTS CORPORATION; TRI-STATE ARMATURE & ELECTRICAL WORKS, INC.; UNIMIN CORPORATION; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; UNITED STATES AIR FORCE; SALES TRANSACTION DEFENDANTS LIAISON; JOHNSON/KERNER LIAISON GROUP,

BARNES & POWELL ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.; TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC; MELINZ REBAR, INC.; BABSON COLLEGE; VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY; BATESVILLE CASKET COMPANY, INCORPORATED; BAY MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL CORPORATION; CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS FL, LLC; CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA; DACCO INCORPORATED; DAVIS. JERRY INC.; DELAWARE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED; E. LUKE GREENE COMPANY, INC.; FABRI-KAL CORPORATION; HENKELS & MCCOY, INC.; J.C. BLAIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; KERR-MCGEE CORPORATION; MAGNETIC METALS CORPORATION; MASS. ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION CO.; NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION; NOVARTIS CORPORATION; OHIO VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH LLC; SHO-ME POWER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE; SAINT AUGUSTINE'S COLLEGE; SEABROOK ENTERPRISES, INC.; SOUTHERN ALLOY CORPORATION; ST. JOHN'S

10 COLLEGE; TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, INC.; THE NORTH CAROLINA GRANITE CORPORATION; THE ROUSE COMPANY, LLC; THOMASVILLE FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; TRULAND CORPORATION; UPS GROUND FREIGHT, INC.; VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY IN THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; EMMA L. BIXBY MEDICAL CENTER; GENCORP, INC.; PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION; RILEY POWER, INC.; THE NATIONAL LIME AND STONE COMPANY; TIMKEN US LLC; WOODSTREAM CORPORATION,

No. 13-1666

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY; AMERICAN ELECTRIC CORPORATION; TOWN OF BLACKSTONE, VIRGINIA; BONNER ELECTRIC, INC.; CHEVRON MINING, INC., as successor-in-interest to Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co.; OWEN ELECTRIC STEEL COMPANY OF SOUTH CAROLINA and/or SMI OWEN STEEL COMPANY, INC., and/or SMI STEEL, d/b/a CMC Steel South Carolina and/or Commercial Metals Company; COHEN AND GREEN SALVAGE COMPANY, INC.; COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC., as successor-in-interest for Abex Friction Products Division of Abex, Inc.; COTTER ELECTRIC COMPANY; CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE; ENDICOTT CLAY PRODUCTS COMPANY; HAGERSTOWN LIGHT DEPARTMENT; HUNTSVILLE UTILITIES; JET ELECTRIC MOTOR CO., INC.; LAFARGE MID-ATLANTIC, LLC AND/OR LAFARGE MID-ATLANTIC, INC. AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST

11 TO OR REDLAND GENSTAR, INC. AND GENSTAR STONE PRODUCTS, INC.; LEWIS ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., INC.; CITY OF MASCOUTAH, ILLINOIS; M-P ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.; NEW SOUTHERN OF ROCKY MOUNT, INC.; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES; P.C. CAMPANA, INC.; PHOENIX SOLUTIONS COMPANY, as successor in interest to Plasma Energy Company; SURRY YADKIN ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION; TENNESSEE ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC, INC. OR TENNESSEE ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC, a/k/a Tennessee Associated Electric Holdings, Inc.; VENTECH ENGINEERS, INC., AND/OR VENTECH PROCESS EQUIPMENT, INC. AND/OR VENTECH EQUIPMENT INC. AND/OR THE VENTECH COMPANIES; VEOLIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES WASTE-TO-ENERGY, f/k/a Montenay Power Corporation; W.R. SCHOFIELD CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.; KELLY GENERATOR & EQUIPMENT, INC. AND/OR KELLY ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION, INC., f/k/a Kelly & Bishop Electrical Construction, Inc. and/or John E. Kelly & Sons Electrical Construction, Inc.; OWEN ELECTRIC STEEL COMPANY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; 3M COMPANY; ALCAN PRIMARY PRODUCTS CORPORATION; ALCOA, INCORPORATED; AMERICAN SKIING COMPANY; APOGEE COAL COMPANY, L.L.C.; APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY; ARKEMA, INC.; ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY; BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY; BASF CORPORATION; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INCORPORATED; BEDFORD RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.; BLUE RIDGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.; BROAD RIVER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.; BRUCE-MERRILEES ELECTRIC COMPANY; BUIST ELECTRIC, INC.; CAPE HATTERAS ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION; CARGILL, INCORPORATED; CARLISLE SYNTEC, INCORPORATED; DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC.; CARR AND DUFF, INC.; CATERPILLAR, INCORPORATED; CBS CORPORATION; CENTRAL REGIONAL HOSPITAL; CHEMICAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION; CHERRY HOSPITAL; CHRISTUS HEALTH; CLEVELAND ELECTRIC COMPANY; COGENTRIX ENERGY, LLC; CONOCOPHILLIPS, COMPANY ; CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY; COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; CSX RESIDUAL COMPANY; DANNY CORPORATION; DEAN'S LIGHT BOX, INC.; DELMARVA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY; DIXON LUMBER COMPANY, INCORPORATED; DOMTAR PAPER COMPANY, LLC; DOREY ELECTRIC COMPANY; DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC; DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY; EAST KENTUCKY POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.; ELECTRIC CONTROL EQUIPMENT CO.; ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SERVICES, INCORPORATED; ERACHEM COMILOG, INC.; FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY; FOREMOST ELECTRIC & TRANSMISSION, INC.; FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; FURMAN UNIVERSITY; G&S MOTOR EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GENERAL EXTRUSIONS, INC.; GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICAN, INC.; GLENWOOD RESOLUTION AUTHORITY, INC.; GREEN CIRCLE GROWERS, INC.; GREENWOOD MILLS, INCORPORATED; GUERNSEY-MUSKINGUM ELECTRIC

12 COOPERATIVE, INC.; HAINES AND KIBBLEHOUSE, INC.; HUDSON LIGHT AND POWER DEPARTMENT; IMERYS CARBONATES, LLC; INTERNATIONAL POWER MACHINERY COMPANY; INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY; INTERTAPE POLYMER GROUP, INCORPORATED; KINGSPORT POWER COMPANY; KOBE COPPER PRODUCTS, INC.; KOCH INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INCORPORATED; CITY OF LAKELAND, FLORIDA; LOCKWOOD'S ELECTRIC MOTOR SERVICE; TOWN OF LOUISBURG, NORTH CAROLINA; LWB REFRACTORIES COMPANY; MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INCORPORATED; MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY; MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY; NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION, d/b/a National Grid; N.L. INDUSTRIES, INC.; NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; NORTH GEORGIA ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION; NUCOR CORPORATION; O'BERRY NEURO- MEDICAL CENTER; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION; PACTIV CORPORATION; PALMETTO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.; PHARMACIA CORPORATION; POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY; PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION; ROYAL STREET JUNK COMPANY, INC.; SANTEE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED; SARA LEE CORPORATION, d/b/a Hillshire Farms; SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY; SOUTH CENTRAL POWER COMPANY; SOUTHLAND ELECTRICAL SUPPLY, INC.; ST. JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; SUMTER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED, d/b/a SECO Energy; T AND R ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.; TENNESSEE ELECTRO-MINERALS, INC.; TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY; TRAP ROCK, INC.; TREDEGAR FILM PRODUCTS CORPORATION; TRI-STATE ARMATURE & ELECTRICAL WORKS, INC.; UNIMIN CORPORATION; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; UNITED STATES DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER COMPANY (VEPCO); VULCAN CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, L.P. ; WARREN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED; WARTBURG COLLEGE; WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION; WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY; WEST PENN POWER COMPANY; SALES TRANSACTION DEFENDANTS LIAISON; VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY IN THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED; JOHNSON/KERNER LIAISON GROUP; WHEELABRATOR TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED; CELANESE CORPORATION; THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; GLADIEUX TRADING & MARKETING COMPANY, L.P.; HOLLADAY PROPERTY SERVICES MIDWEST, INC.; INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED; JESSOP STEEL COMPANY, now known as Jessop Steel, LLC; NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY IS A CONSTITUENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA; PEACE COLLEGE OF RALEIGH, INC.; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION; UNIVERSITY OF NORTH

13 CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, A CONSTITUENT INSTITUTION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA; POWER MACHINERY COMPANY,

TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY; BABSON COLLEGE; BARNES & POWELL ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.; BATESVILLE CASKET COMPANY, INCORPORATED; BAY MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL CORPORATION; CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS FL, LLC; CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA; DACCO INCORPORATED; DAVIS. JERRY INC.; DELAWARE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED; E. LUKE GREENE COMPANY, INC.; FABRI-KAL CORPORATION; HENKELS & MCCOY, INC.; IES COMMERCIAL, INC., AND/OR INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL SERVICES, INC.; J.C. BLAIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; KERR-MCGEE CORPORATION; MAGNETIC METALS CORPORATION; MASS. ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION CO.; MELINZ REBAR, INC.; NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION; NOVARTIS CORPORATION; OHIO VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH LLC; SHO-ME POWER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE; SAINT AUGUSTINE'S COLLEGE; SEABROOK ENTERPRISES, INC.; SOUTHERN ALLOY CORPORATION; ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE; TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, INC.; THE NORTH CAROLINA GRANITE CORPORATION; THE ROUSE COMPANY, LLC; THOMASVILLE FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; TRULAND CORPORATION; UPS GROUND FREIGHT, INC.; GENCORP, INC.; PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION; THE NATIONAL LIME AND STONE COMPANY; TIMKEN US LLC; WOODSTREAM CORPORATION; EMMA L. BIXBY MEDICAL CENTER; RILEY POWER, INC.,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:08-cv-00460-FL; 5:08-cv-00463-FL)

Argued: October 30, 2014 Decided: March 20, 2015

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

14 Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Agee wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge Shedd joined. Judge Wynn wrote a dissenting opinion.

ARGUED: Daniel M. Darragh, COHEN & GRIGSBY, P.C., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Michael Howard Ginsberg, JONES DAY, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellants. Daniel S. Reinhardt, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Julie W. Vanneman, COHEN & GRIGSBY, P.C., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant Consolidation Coal Company. Brian J. Murray, Chicago, Illinois, Mary Beth Deemer, JONES DAY, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant PCS Phosphate Company, Incorporated. Hollister A. Hill, Jaime L. Theriot, Atlanta, Georgia, Whitney S. Waldenberg, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

15 AGEE, Circuit Judge:

In the early 1980s, Georgia Power, a utility company that

supplies power to most of Georgia, sold many of its used

electrical transformers at auction to Ward Transformer Company

(“Ward”). These electrical transformers contained insulating

oil, and some of that oil contained polychlorinated biphenyls

(“PCBs”), toxic compounds that have been banned since 1979.

Ward repaired and rebuilt used transformers, including those it

purchased from Georgia Power, for resale to meet third-party

customers’ specifications. In the process, Ward’s Raleigh,

North Carolina, facility (the “Ward Site”) became contaminated

with PCBs.

In the mid-2000s, the EPA added the Ward Site to its

National Priorities List and initiated a costly removal action.

Consolidated Coal Company (“Consol”) and PCS Phosphate Company,

Inc. (“PCS”) have borne much of that removal cost. They filed a

complaint under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) against Georgia

Power, contending that, as supplier of some of the transformers

to Ward, it should be liable for a contribution to those costs.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Georgia

Power. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment

of the district court.

16 I. Background

A. CERCLA

In 1980, Congress enacted CERCLA in response to the

environmental and health risks posed by industrial pollution.

Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 559,

602 (2009). “The Act was designed to promote the ‘timely

cleanup of hazardous waste sites’ and to ensure that the costs

of such cleanup efforts were borne by those responsible for the

contamination.” Id. (quoting Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. UGI

Util., Inc., 423 F.3d 90, 94 (2d Cir. 2005)).

CERCLA imposes liability upon four broad categories of

“potentially responsible parties” (“PRPs”). Id. at 605, 608.

Briefly stated, these categories are (1) owners and operators of

a vessel or facility, (2) any person who owned or operated a

facility at the time a hazardous substance is disposed, (3)

those persons who arrange for disposal or treatment of hazardous

substances, and (4) those who accept hazardous substances for

transport to disposal or treatment facilities. 42 U.S.C.

§ 9607(a). The case before us involves the third liability

category, often termed the arranger provision, which imposes

liability on

any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal or treatment . . . of hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person, by any other party or entity, at any facility or incineration

17 vessel owned or operated by another party or entity and containing such hazardous substances.

Id. § 9607(a)(3) (emphasis added). If PRP status is

established, a party faces liability under CERCLA for “all costs

of removal or remedial action incurred by the United States

Government or a State” as well as “any other necessary costs of

response incurred by any other person consistent with the

national contingency plan.” Id. § 9607(a)(4). CERCLA permits a

PRP to “seek contribution from any other person who is liable or

potentially liable under section 9607(a).” Id. § 9613(f)(1). 1

B. The Ward Site

Ward operated a business in which it purchased used,

obsolete, or damaged electrical transformers and reconditioned

or repaired them for resale. These types of transformers “step

down” the voltage of electricity as it moves from power plants

to end users. The particular type of electrical transformer at

issue here typically contains an enclosed, vacuum-sealed

external tank, an internal iron core, and coils consisting of

copper or aluminum windings wrapped in cellulose insulation that

tightly surround the core. These internal parts must be

1 Though PCBs have been banned since 1979, the EPA continues to employ CERCLA in an effort to clean PCB-contaminated sites. See, e.g., NCR Corp. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., 768 F.3d 682, 688-89 (7th Cir. 2014); Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Allis Chalmers Corp., 893 F.2d 1313, 1315 (11th Cir. 1990).

18 immersed in oil to work properly, and often the insulating oil

contained PCBs.

Ward left some of the transformers it purchased on an

outside lot. When Ward received an order, it would then select

a transformer from the lot and recondition or rebuild it to the

customer’s specifications. This process ranged from cleaning,

testing and painting a transformer, to rebuilding it entirely by

draining any remaining oil and removing the inner components by

crane to perform work on the core and coils.

Given the sometimes significant work Ward performed on

transformers, some oil spills occurred at the Ward Site. 2

Because of PCB contamination, the EPA added the Ward Site to its

National Priorities List. In 2004 the EPA formally initiated a

time-critical removal action, during which workers have removed

over 400,000 tons of contaminated soil.

2 Georgia Power disputes that contamination occurred after 1979, during the years at issue here. Ward witnesses testified that they believed contamination occurred before the early 1980s because, in approximately 1978, Ward implemented strict policies and procedures regarding handling of transformers and transformer oil. The district court, however, made no factual finding on this issue. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Consol and PCS, we assume that some contamination continued at the Ward Site through the period at issue in this case.

19 C. The Georgia Power Transformers

When Georgia Power ceased using transformers, it sent them

to its own repair facility. There, Georgia Power inspected each

used transformer and designated it either for repair and reuse

within the company or for disposal in a commercially reasonable

manner. A 1974 Georgia Power bulletin provided procedures “for

disposing of surplus, obsolete or damaged distribution line

transformers.” (J.A. 1329.) The bulletin refers to the

disposition of retired transformers as “scrapping,” but

clarifies that scrapped transformers are “actually sold.” (Id.

at 1331 (providing instructions for “[w]hen transformers are

scrapped, (actually sold)”).) The “Scrapping Procedure”

instructs Georgia Power employees to “conclude the disposal of

the transformers to the best advantage of the company.” (Id.)

Because PCBs are regulated by the Toxic Substances Control

Act of 1976 (“TSCA”), Georgia Power had to adjust procedures

after the passage of that Act. Georgia Power began testing

surplus transformers for PCB concentration, with the resulting

concentration dictating what course Georgia Power pursued with

regard to a transformer. The TSCA prohibited Georgia Power from

selling transformers with PCB concentrations at 50 parts per

million (“ppm”) or more for continued use or rebuilding.

Georgia Power therefore sent those transformers to TSCA-licensed

20 smelters. Transformers with less than 50 ppm were either

repaired for reuse by the company or sold at auction.

Georgia Power transferred the transformers designated for

sale to its Salvage Department, also known as the Investment

Recovery department. Before sale, Georgia Power usually removed

the free-flowing oil from the transformers through a double-

pumping procedure. This process removed all oil from the

transformers except a thin sheen coating the inside of the

transformers and the cores and coils. 3

Moisture from the atmosphere can cause damage to the

internal components of an exposed transformer lacking oil.

“[M]oisture [to a transformer] is basically like cancer to a

person.” (Id. at 2211.) Georgia Power, nonetheless, sometimes

kept surplus drained transformers uncapped and exposed to

moisture prior to sale.

Georgia Power sold used transformers in lots to the highest

bidder at auction. Buyers placed bids on a per kilovolt-ampere

basis (“KVA,” a measure of transformer capacity) for the entire

lot. The winning bidder could inspect the transformers and

reject any lots or, in some cases, individual units that it did

3 The removed PCB-contaminated oil was disposed of by third- party contractors, sold to TSCA-authorized boiler facilities, or burned in Georgia Power’s TSCA-authorized generating plant. Oil with less than 10 ppm was reclaimed for reuse, and oil with 10 to 49 ppm was sold as a secondary fuel. There is no issue as to the disposition of this removed oil.

21 not wish to purchase. Georgia Power guaranteed title to the

transformers to the buyer, but made no other warranties.

From September 1983 to October 1984, Ward successfully bid

upon and purchased 101 Georgia Power transformers at four

separate auctions. Ward bid on other lots of transformers that

it did not win and on one occasion opted to take possession of

only 11 transformers despite winning a lot that contained 18.

Of the transformers that Ward purchased, Georgia Power

designated approximately 20 as “scrap,” indicating that they

needed repair. Ward records identify the same transformers and

at least 20 others as “FAULTY,” which indicated an electrical

defect due to a short, bad wiring, or some other problem. (Id.

at 2215, 2219, 2222-23.) 4 Georgia Power drained the majority of

the transformers prior to transfer, but it left the oil in 14 of

the 101 transformers. These undrained units all had PCB

concentrations between 0 and 50 ppm, except one that had a

concentration of 488 ppm. Ward’s records indicate that one of

the drained transformers still had “about 5 gals” of 17.4 ppm

PCB oil in it four years after arriving at Ward. (Id. at 2225.)

Ward replaced the five gallons with new oil.

4 A portion of Consol’s and PCS’ evidence stems from an affidavit that Georgia Power moved to strike. The district court assumed admissibility and denied the motion to strike as moot after granting summary judgment. (Id. at 3405.) For our analysis, we likewise assume that the evidence was admissible.

22 For the 101 transformers it purchased, Ward paid from $0.77

to $3.21 per KVA for 43 units. For another 31 units, the lot

prices ranged from $1.11 to $1.18 per KVA. And for the final 27

transformers, Ward paid from $1.74 to $2.16 per KVA. Because

transformers typically contain thousands of pounds of metals,

even broken transformers remained valuable. 5

Ward sold all 101 transformers it purchased from Georgia

Power to third parties as working transformers. It “rebuilt” 80

of the transformers prior to sale. “[I]n most cases,” this

involved “untank[ing] the transformer and do[ing] some work to

the coils, whether [it was] reconnecting or rewinding part of

it.” (Id. 1046; 3267-68.) None of the Georgia Power

transformers was sold for scrap.

D. Savannah Electric Transformers

In 1980, Savannah Electric and Power Company (“Savannah

Electric”) sold 20 transformers at auction to Electric Equipment

5 The record provides sparse evidence from which to give any context to these per-KVA values. Richard Westover, who defendants below disclosed as an expert in used electrical equipment, testified that a sale at $3.00 per KVA would tend to indicate that the transformers were functional, whereas a sale around $1.00 per KVA suggests that the parties “obviously knew that these were non-working transformers.” (Id. at 1280-81.) The Plaintiffs’ Joint Statement of Material Facts, filed below, claims that the $1.00 per KVA price for a broken transformer is “to account for the value of the raw materials inside.” (Id. at 2229.) However, it is unclear from the record to what extent, if any, the raw materials or any other factor might contribute to that value.

23 Company of New York (“EECNY”). EECNY then shipped these units

to Ward for storage until it or Ward could find a third-party

buyer. In 2006, Savannah Electric merged with Georgia Power

with Georgia Power as the surviving entity.

When it sold the transformers to EENCY, Savannah Electric

was updating its inventory of transformers by selling and

replacing those that contained PCBs. To accomplish that goal it

sold transformers that “were in good shape” that it “just had no

use for.” (Id. at 2231.)

The 20 transformers that Savannah Electric sold to EECNY

thus were in “perfectly good working order.” (Id. at 2233.)

These transformers “had been in service and were simply de-

energized and sold with no record of any problems or defects.”

(Id.) All the units sold contained oil, with some level of PCB

concentration. Ward performed work on some of the units to

alter obsolete voltage configurations to meet the demands of

certain prospective purchasers. Ward sold three units as

“COMPLETELY REBUILT” with changed voltages, having opened the

transformers to rewind the coils. (Id. at 2234-35, 2456.) Ward

labeled three other transformers as “REBUILT AND GUARANTEED,”

after baking out their coils and doing other work. (Id. at

2235-36, 2438.) However, all 20 transformers were functioning

units that could have been used without alteration by a third-

party purchaser with a matching KVA need.

24 Ward sold each of the 20 Savannah Electric transformers as

well as the 101 Georgia Power transformers. The available

records show that Ward sold the transformers for more than it

had paid and expended varying degrees of resources on those

transformers before sale.

E. Relevant Proceedings Below

In 2005, Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (“Progress,” f/k/a

Carolina Power & Light Company) and Consol entered into an

administrative settlement with the EPA, in which they agreed to

perform removal actions at the Ward Site and to reimburse the

EPA for removal costs. PCS later entered a trust agreement with

Progress and Consol and contributed toward the costs of the Ward

cleanup. Consol and PCS have each paid more than $17 million in

cleanup costs related to the Ward Site.

In 2008 and 2009, Consol and Progress filed complaints in

the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North

Carolina against Georgia Power, PCS, and a number of other

defendants seeking contribution for response costs under CERCLA.

See 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f). The district court consolidated the

suits into two cases, one with Consol as plaintiff and one with

Progress as plaintiff. PCS counterclaimed against Consol and

Progress, and it cross-claimed for CERCLA contribution against

the other defendants, including Georgia Power. Consol,

25 Progress, and PCS alleged that Georgia Power “arranged for

disposal . . . of” PCBs through its sales of used transformers

to Ward and was liable for the Savannah Electric transformers as

the successor in interest to that entity. Id. § 9607(a)(3).

The parties proceeded via a test case method, in which one

defendant who had sold transformers to Ward and one defendant

who had transformers repaired by Ward volunteered to litigate

their respective liability, with discovery stayed for all other

parties. The district court bifurcated the proceedings into two

phases: the first to determine liability under CERCLA and, if

necessary, the second to allocate damages. Georgia Power

volunteered to be the test case for a selling defendant.

After discovery, Georgia Power moved for summary judgment.

The district court granted the motion, finding that Georgia

Power had “show[n] it did not have the necessary intent to

create arranger liability under CERCLA.” Carolina Power & Light

Co. v. Alcan Aluminum Corp. (CP&L), 921 F. Supp. 2d 488, 499

(E.D.N.C. 2013). The court emphasized that the used

transformers were useful, valuable products from which Ward was

able to “mak[e] thousands of dollars more than what [it] paid

Georgia Power.” Id. at 488. At Consol’s and PCS’ request, the

court entered final judgment on the claims against Georgia

Power.

26 Consol and PCS timely appealed, and we consolidated the

appeals into the present case. We have jurisdiction over this

appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

II. Discussion

Consol and PCS argue that the district court improperly

focused on the overall value of the used transformers and Ward’s

ability to profit from their resell. This, they contend,

overlooks the possibility that Georgia Power had a dual intent:

to gain revenue from the sales and to arrange for the disposal

of PCBs. Georgia Power counters that it intended only to engage

in legitimate sale transactions in a competitive market and that

nothing in the record suggests its intent to dispose of PCBs.

We review de novo the district court’s determination of PRP

status under CERCLA and grant of summary judgment. PCS Nitrogen

Inc. v. Ashley II of Charleston LLC, 714 F.3d 161, 172 (4th Cir.

2013). In doing so, we construe all facts and reasonable

inference in favor of the non-moving parties, which here are

Consol and PCS. Turner v. United States, 736 F.3d 274, 280

(4th Cir. 2013).

A. CERCLA Arranger Liability

What qualifies as “arranging for disposal” under CERCLA “is

clear at the margins but murky in the middle.” NCR Corp., 768

F.3d at 704. At one extreme, liability plainly attaches if an

27 entity enters a transaction “for the sole purpose of discarding

a used and no longer useful hazardous substance.” Burlington,

556 U.S. at 610. On the other extreme, there is no liability

“merely for selling a new and useful product if the purchaser of

that product later, and unbeknownst to the seller, disposed of

the product in a way that led to contamination.” Id.

“[B]etween these two extremes” are arrangements where “the

seller has some knowledge of the buyers’ planned disposal or

whose motives for the ‘sale’ of hazardous substances are less

than clear.” Id. In those cases, the court must undertake a

“fact-intensive inquiry that looks beyond the parties’

characterization of the transaction as a ‘disposal’ or a

‘sale.’” Id.

In Burlington, the Supreme Court considered whether Shell

Oil had arranged for disposal of pesticides and other chemical

products by shipping them to a wholesale distributor “under

conditions it knew would result in the spilling of a portion of

the hazardous substance by the purchaser or common carrier.”

Id. at 612. The government contended that the phrase “arranged

for disposal” should be interpreted broadly, based on the

definition of the statutory term “disposal.” 6 Id. at 611. In

6 CERCLA defines “disposal” as “the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that (Continued) 28 the government’s view, Congress had included “unintentional acts

such as ‘spilling’ and ‘leaking’ in the definition of disposal”

because it intended to impose liability when entities “engage in

legitimate sales of hazardous substances knowing that some

disposal may occur as a collateral consequence of the sale

itself.” Id. at 611-12 (footnote omitted).

The Supreme Court rejected the government’s position. To

be sure, the Court acknowledged, “in some instances an entity’s

knowledge that its product will be leaked, spilled, dumped, or

otherwise discarded may provide evidence of the entity’s intent

to dispose of its hazardous wastes.” Id. at 612. But the Court

further concluded that “knowledge alone is insufficient to prove

that an entity ‘planned for’ the disposal, particularly when the

disposal occurs as a peripheral result of the legitimate sale of

an unused, useful product.” Id. at 612. To qualify as an

arranger, Shell would have had to sell the chemicals “with the

intention that at least a portion of the product be disposed of

during the transfer process by one or more of the methods”

within the statutory definition of disposal. Id. at 612. Far

from intending for the spills to occur, Shell “took numerous

such solid waste or hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including ground waters.” 42 U.S.C. § 6903(3).

29 steps to encourage its distributors to reduce the likelihood of

such spills.” Id. at 613. Given those circumstances, Shell’s

“mere knowledge that spills and leaks continued to occur”

provided “insufficient grounds” to find that Shell had arranged

for a disposal within the meaning of § 9607(a)(3). Id. Thus,

for arranger liability to be found, something more is required

than mere knowledge “that some disposal may occur as a

collateral consequence of the sale itself.” Id. at 612.

Prior to Burlington, we identified four factors in Pneumo

Abex Corp. v. High Point, Thomasville and Denton Railroad Co.

that could be useful in “determining whether a transaction was

for the discard of hazardous substances or for the sale of

valuable materials”:

[1] the intent of the parties to the contract as to whether the materials were to be reused entirely or reclaimed and then reused, [2] the value of the materials sold, [3] the usefulness of the materials in the condition in which they were sold, and [4] the state of the product at the time of transferral (was the hazardous material contained or leaking/ loose).

142 F.3d 769, 775 (4th Cir. 1998). We also recognized that

there was “no bright line” and that “[a] party’s responsibility

. . . must by necessity turn on a fact-specific inquiry into the

nature of the transaction.” Id. (internal quotation marks

omitted).

In Pneumo Abex, a parts foundry sought contribution for

cleanup costs from railroads that shipped used wheel bearings to

30 the foundry and received credit for their weight against the

purchase of new bearings. Id. at 773. The foundry removed

dirt, grease, and impurities from the used bearings and melted

the bearings to mold new bearings. In this process dust and

slag was produced, which was dumped in an area that the EPA

found to be contaminated. Id. at 775.

We concluded that the railroads did not arrange for

disposal of the wheel bearings, for CERCLA purposes, by sending

them to the foundry. “The intent of both parties to the

transaction was that the wheel bearings would be reused in their

entirety in the creation of new wheel bearings,” not simply

disposed of as hazardous metals. Id. We likened the case to

one “in which a party sells to another a material which becomes

hazardous in its use, but is contained when sold.” Id.

Several factors led to that conclusion. The slag and dust

would have been produced “even if virgin materials were used to

make the new bearings.” Id. The dirt and grease were removed

“incidental to remolding new bearings,” and “were not the

hazardous materials, the metals themselves were.” Id. Also,

the foundry paid for the bearings; the railroads did not pay for

disposal of unwanted metal. Id. In sum, “[t]he parties

contemplated that the bearings were a valuable product for which

the Foundry paid a competitive price.” Id. at 775-76.

31 Consol and PCS do not contend that the sole or even primary

purpose of the sale of the transformers was to dispose of PCBs.

On this record, Burlington would foreclose that claim. Instead,

Consol and PCS contend Georgia Power and Savannah Electric had a

secondary motive for the transformer sale -- to dispose of PCBs

–- and that this secondary motive is sufficient to create

arranger liability under CERCLA.

In that regard, neither Burlington nor Pneumo Abex

foreclose arranger liability as a matter of law based on a

secondary intent, at least when there is a sufficient factual

basis for such a finding from the necessary “fact intensive and

case specific” inquiry. Burlington, 556 U.S. at 610.

Nonetheless, a party does not “intend to dispose” of a hazardous

substance solely by selling a product to a buyer who at some

point down the line disposes of a hazardous substance that was

within the product. The Supreme Court made that point quite

clear in Burlington. Anytime an entity sells a product that

contains a hazardous substance, it also “intends” to rid itself

of that hazardous substance in some metaphysical sense. But

intent to sell a product that happens to contain a hazardous

substance is not equivalent to intent to dispose of a hazardous

substance under CERCLA. For arranger liability to attach, there

must be something more.

32 The something more could be the seller’s “intentional

steps,” beyond what is inherent to the sale, to dispose of the

hazardous waste. Id. at 611. Or other evidence might

demonstrate that the seller “entered into the sale . . . with

the intention that at least a portion of the [hazardous] product

be disposed of” as defined in the act -– by discharge, deposit,

injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing it into or on

any land or water. Id. at 612. This is the “fact-intensive

inquiry that looks beyond the parties’ characterization,” id. at

610, and “into the nature of the transaction,” Pneumo Abex, 142

F.3d at 775 (internal quotation marks omitted). With that

framework in mind, we turn to the circumstances of transformer

sales by Georgia Power and Savannah Electric.

B. Georgia Power Transformers

Consol and PCS fail to establish a material issue of fact

in dispute as to Georgia Power’s intent to arrange for the

disposal of PCBs in the 101 transformers it sold to Ward. There

is no direct evidence that Georgia Power intended, even in part,

to arrange for the disposal of PCBs through these transactions.

Nor is there circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable

juror could infer that Georgia Power so intended.

33 1. Direct Evidence

Consol and PCS have pointed to no direct evidence that

Georgia Power auctioned its transformers to Ward intending to

dispose of the contained PCBs. What direct evidence does exist

of Georgia Power’s subjective intent reflects only that it

wished to sell its used transformers “to the best advantage of

the company” –- to recover revenue. (J.A. 1331.) Although

Georgia Power’s procedures for offloading transformers refer to

“scrapping,” and even to “disposal,” it is equally clear that,

where permitted by the TSCA, Georgia Power meant those terms to

reflect that the transformers were “actually sold.” (Id.)

Georgia Power may have called these sales “disposals” in its

1974 procedures bulletin, but that has limited bearing on its

intent to “dispose” of transformers as the word is construed in

CERCLA, let alone the PCBs within those transformers.

Consol and PCS argue that Georgia Power’s PCB testing

procedure for used transformers –- first testing the PCB

concentrations and then processing the transformers differently

based on the result -- proves that one overall goal was to

dispose of PCBs. The procedure, however, merely demonstrates

Georgia Power’s intent to comply with the TSCA, the federal

waste statute that compels a differential process based on

products with PCB levels above or below 50 ppm. Georgia Power

legitimately sought to sell used transformers to its greatest

34 commercial advantage, and the TSCA circumscribed how Georgia

Power went about accomplishing that goal. Compliance with the

TSCA does not create a backdoor arranger liability factor under

CERCLA.

In Burlington, the Supreme Court noted “the indispensable

role that state of mind must play in determining whether a party

has otherwise arranged for disposal . . . of hazardous

substances.” 556 U.S. at 611 (internal quotation marks omitted)

(quoting with approval United States v. Cello-Foil Prods., Inc.,

100 F.3d 1227, 1231 (6th Cir. 1996)). The record before us does

not contain any direct evidence that Georgia Power’s “state of

mind” in selling the transformers was to “dispose” of PCBs.

2. Circumstantial Evidence

The circumstantial evidence surrounding Georgia Power’s

transformers sales also fails to create a material issue of fact

as to Georgia Power’s intent in selling the transformers.

Consol and PCS argue that intent to dispose of the PCBs is

evident from the nature of the sales. For example, they contend

that some transformers were drained of oil and non-functional,

exposed to damaging moisture, or sold in lots at low prices.

However, the circumstances of the sales, viewed through the lens

of Burlington and supported by the Pneumo Abex factors, do not

support arranger liability in this case. The record reflects

35 the position of Consol and PCS rests on speculation, not a

dispute over a genuine issue of material fact.

a) Intent for Reuse

The first Pneumo Abex factor asks whether the parties

intended for “the materials . . . to be reused entirely or

reclaimed and then reused.” 142 F.3d at 775. Consol and PCS

argue that the PCB-contaminated oil and parts were “worthless

accouterments” to the transformer shells that Ward really

wanted. (Appellant’s Br. 39.) Georgia Power, focusing on the

overall product, responds that Ward commercially reused all of

the transformers, selling them to third-party buyers and usually

for a profit.

Much of the parties’ disagreement as to this and the

remaining Pneumo Abex factors turns on whether the court should

apply the factors with respect to the overall product (the

transformers) or only the hazardous material contained within,

ignoring all other circumstances of the transaction. Where, as

here, the hazardous materials are part of the overall product, a

court may consider whether those materials were necessary to the

sale, or instead, could and should have been separated. As we

noted in Pneumo Abex, if the hazardous materials are an

“incidental” component of a legitimate sale, then their

inclusion in the transaction may well demonstrate nothing more

36 than the seller’s intent to complete the sale of the overall

product. Pneumo Abex, 142 F.3d at 775-76 (no arranger liability

for returning wheel bearings containing valuable but hazardous

metal that was molded into new bearings); see also, e.g., NCR

Corp., 768 F.3d at 688, 707 (no arranger liability for a paper

company who sold paper scraps containing PCBs to a recycling

plant, where the PCBs were released only once the plant

processed the valuable scraps into usable fibers).

On the other hand, if the hazardous material could

practicably have been excluded from the sale, that may suggest

the seller entered the transaction with a further intent to

arrange for a disposal. See, e.g., Cello-Foil, 100 F.3d at 1230

(recognizing an issue of fact as to arranger liability and

reversing a grant of summary judgment where a solvent purchaser

returned reusable drums to recover a deposit but in some cases

left in the drums “unused solvents of up to fifteen gallons”).

For these reasons, the proper focus of the Pneumo Abex analysis

-- the overall product or a particular material within –- will

likely depend on the product’s construction. If the hazardous

materials are easily separable from the overall product, such as

a battery in a toy, it may generally be appropriate to direct

the Pneumo Abex inquiry toward those materials. But if

separation is impractical, like a coat of paint on the toy, it

37 will make more sense to direct the inquiry toward the overall

product.

At the product level in this case, there is no dispute that

Ward, the purchaser, intended to reuse the transformers to the

greatest extent possible, including as whole units. Ward was in

the repair and resale business; it did not operate a disposal

facility. The record does not establish that Ward purchased the

transformers to resell for scrap. Nor does the record establish

that the parties had any divergent intent for how Ward would

handle the PCB-containing oil and oil-soaked parts. The

evidence, such as it is, simply does not support an inference

that either of the parties entered into the sale of the

transformers with the intent that Ward would replace the oil or

any oil-soaked parts as a matter of course.

Ward’s later decision not to reuse the PCB oil and oil-

coated parts in some transformers does not imply that Georgia

Power had an intent to dispose of the oil when selling the

transformers. Third-party customer specifications, which

directed Ward’s profit motive, dictated how Ward chose to

process the transformers. While some of the former Georgia

Power transformers might be sold “as is, where is” to a third-

party for a reasonable commercial return, others might be sold

for a higher profit to a customer only after repair or retooling

38 depending on that customer’s need. None of that connects to a

disposal intent for oil on the part of Georgia Power.

Any disposal of PCBs occurred only as a result of Ward’s

later business judgments, not any implicit agreement or

understanding between Ward and Georgia Power at the time of

auction. Nothing in the record reflects to the contrary. See

NCR Corp., 768 F.3d at 706 (observing that the purchaser had

multiple options for handling the hazardous byproduct it

produced; that the seller “neither contracted with them to take

that step, nor did it have any control over what the [purchaser]

ultimately did”; and that this “lack of control” was “a good

reason to find [the seller] was not arranging for disposal”);

Pneumo Abex, 142 F.3d at 775 (observing that the “removal of

contaminants was not the purpose of the transaction”; the

foundry processed the wheel bearing because they were “worn out

or broken”). Here, Georgia Power lacked knowledge of or control

over what Ward chose to do with the transformers Ward acquired.

Even more, Georgia Power did not know whether and to what extent

Ward would reuse the PCB-contaminated oil and parts in any

transformers it determined to rebuild or retool.

Other than speculation on the part of the appellants, there

is no record basis to conclude that when Georgia Power sold the

transformers to Ward, either party had any intent that the

transformers be scrapped or sold for parts as reclaimed

39 materials as opposed to “reused entirely.” Thus, we find no

error in the district court’s implicit conclusion that the first

Pneumo Abex factor weighs in Georgia Power’s favor based on its

“fact-intensive and case-specific” inquiry. 7

b) Value

Pneumo Abex also advises courts to consider “the value of

the materials sold.” Id. Consol and PCS argue that the

transformers had value “despite the tainted residual oil, not

because of it.” (Appellant’s Br. 40.) Georgia Power

emphasizes, as the district court did, that the transformers had

real commercial value, for which Ward paid a “competitive price”

and later sold them all for profit. See CP&L, 921 F. Supp. 2d

at 500.

The record confirms that Georgia Power recovered revenue in

excess of scrap value from the sales, and that Ward profited

from the resale of the transformers. Ward purchased the

transformers at competitive auctions, sometimes losing units to

7 Consol and PCS argue that the district court’s failure to expressly state its resolution of the first Pneumo Abex factor is a fatal error that requires vacation of the judgment. We find the district court’s resolution of this factor to be sufficiently clear from its remaining analysis, and in any event, Pneumo Abex merely highlights some factors that courts “focus on” in carrying out the arranger liability inquiry. 142 F.3d at 775. The result of the inquiry is not contingent on any single factor.

40 higher bids. Cf. Pneumo Abex, 142 F.3d at 775-76 (“The parties

contemplated that the bearings were a valuable product for which

the Foundry paid a competitive price.”). This is not a case

where the parties entered an “idiosyncratic” transaction for a

substance for which there was no “general demand.” United

States v. Gen. Elec. Co., 670 F.3d 377, 386 (1st Cir. 2012)

(“[T]he lack of a viable market for scrap Pyranol during the

relevant period supplies further proof that GE did not view

scrap Pyranol as a legitimate and serviceable product.”). In

the district court’ words, “Ward was able to resell most or all

of the transformers that it purchased from Georgia Power, after

reconditioning and/or reconfiguration, making thousands of

dollars more than what Ward paid Georgia Power, on resale.”

CP&L, 921 F. Supp. 2d at 498. That Ward repaired or rebuilt

some of the transformers was simply its business model and the

used transformers were, in essence, its raw materials.

“Clearly, the transformers that Georgia Power sold to Ward had

marketable value.” Id.

The record does not support the conclusion that the

presence of PCB-contaminated oil and parts depressed the

transformers’ value. Consol and PCS present no evidence that

Ward paid less for transformers based on PCBs, which could have

suggested Georgia Power’s intent to “contract[] away [its]

responsibility” to dispose. Fla. Power & Light Co., 893 F.2d at

41 1318 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Pneumo Abex,

142 F.3d at 775 (“The Foundry paid the appellants for the

bearings; the appellants did not pay the Foundry to dispose of

unwanted metal.”). The undrained transformers would not have

been functional without the oil and oil-coated parts, and a

functional transformer is intuitively more valuable than a

nonfunctional transformer. Georgia Power’s decision to not

render these transformers inoperable can hardly be evidence that

Georgia Power intended to dispose of PCBs. For the drained

transformers, the evidence does not show that a residual PCB oil

sheen created increased costs for Ward during the repair and

rebuilding processes or, as noted above, affected the auction

price. In short, there is no basis in the record to isolate a

negative value for the PCB-contaminated oil and parts from the

unquestionably positive commercial value of the transformers.

Consol and PCS argue that certain factors relating to the

sales -- that Georgia Power sold the transformers in lots,

allowed some of the coils to be exposed to moisture, and

provided no warranties except as to title -- reflect an intent

to simply scrap the transformers to get rid of the PCBs in the

oil. But Consol and PCS adduced no evidence that such sale

factors had any relationship to a decision to dispose of PCBs

and were not ordinary commercial terms of sale. The value of

the transformers was in their ability to be resold to meet

42 third-party customers’ orders. Cf. NCR Corp., 768 F.3d at 704

(“Purchasing this product was essential to the recycling mills’

business operations, and they must take the bitter with the

sweet of operating in that market.”). There simply is not

evidence in the record supporting the argument by Consol and PCS

that the auctions were, even in part, an intended PCB disposal

arrangement. Accordingly, the district court’s determination as

to the Pneumo Abex “value” factor is well supported.

c) Usefulness

The third Pneumo Abex factor considers “the usefulness of

the materials in the condition in which they were sold.” 142

F.3d at 775. Consol and PCS argue that the residual oil “could

not by itself cool a transformer” and was “undesirable to use in

rebuilt transformers.” (Appellant’s Br. 43.) Georgia Power,

again, focuses on the transformers and highlights the district

court’s conclusion that “all or most continued to be used as

transformers after their sale because they had not reached the

end of their useful lives.” CP&L, 921 F. Supp. 2d at 489.

The PCB content thus does not appear to have factored into

the continued usefulness of the auctioned transformers. Consol

and PCS say that some materials in some transformers were

discarded, but not that they had to be. Georgia Power did not

auction all of the used transformers that regulations permitted

43 it to sell; some it reconditioned and retained itself. That

decision was based not on PCB content, but on age, obsolescence,

the need for additional stock of the particular transformer

type, and the nature and extent of any needed repairs. (J.A.

2201.)

Once Ward acquired the transformers, the record does not

show that Ward was required or necessarily had to remove

residual oil or oil sheen containing the PCBs. Customer

specifications dictated how Ward processed the transformers, and

it was able to process all of them for sale. Again, we find no

error in the district court’s application of this Pneumo Abex

factor.

d) State at the Time of Transfer

Finally, the fourth Pneumo Abex factor addresses “the state

of the product at the time of transferral,” and particularly

whether the “hazardous material [was] contained or leaking/

loose.” 142 F.3d at 775. Consol and PCS acknowledge that the

transformers were not leaking, but conjecture that the condition

of some of the transformers at the time of transfer was

equivalent to a leaking transformer. The record, however, shows

that, as in Pneumo Abex, this is a case “in which a party sells

to another a material which becomes hazardous in its use, but is

contained when sold.” Id.

44 There is no evidence that any form of “disposal” under

CERCLA occurred during the transformers’ transfer from Georgia

Power to Ward. None of the undrained transformers were leaking

oil at the time of sale because they were capped. CP&L, 921 F.

Supp. 2d at 498. Nor is there any record evidence that the

drained transformers leaked or spilled in conjunction with the

sale transfer. As the district court found, allegations

relating to the condition of the transformers do not “amount to

leaking at the time of sale.” Id. at 498-99. Absent leaks or

some similar disposal of hazardous substances during the

transfer, this factor does not indicate Georgia Power’s intent

to arrange for a disposal. See Pneumo Abex, 142 F.3d at 775

(noting that the hazardous metals “were in a contained form when

delivered for sale”). The district court did not err in

concluding that the fourth Pneumo Abex factor weighed in favor

of Georgia Power.

e) Knowledge

Finally, relying on Burlington, Consol and PCS argue that

Georgia Power’s intent to dispose can be inferred from its

knowledge that Ward could spill PCBs while rebuilding the

transformers. The district court observed that knowledge alone

was insufficient for liability “where all other factors counsel

toward a finding that Georgia Power lacked the requisite intent

45 for arranger liability.” CP&L, 921 F. Supp. 2d at 499 (citing

Burlington, 556 U.S. at 612 (“[K]nowledge alone is insufficient

to prove that an entity ‘planned for’ the disposal[.]”)). The

district court noted that, at any rate, the “knowledge” Consol

and PCS allege was “merely about Georgia Power’s general

expertise in dealing with transformers and PCB-laden oils, and

not any knowledge as to spills at Ward.” Id. at 499. Nothing

in the record contradicts that determination or the view that

Ward “unbeknownst to the seller, disposed of the product in a

way that led to contamination.” Burlington, 556 U.S. at 610.

In some respects, Georgia Power appears even less culpable

than Shell Oil in Burlington, which apparently had some

knowledge “that some disposal may occur as a collateral

consequence of the sale itself.” Id. at 612. Shell Oil was

nonetheless found not to have sufficient intent for arranger

liability. In contrast, the record here shows no knowledge by

Georgia Power of the disposition of the transformers (and any

PCBs) once acquired by Ward. Given Georgia Power’s clear intent

to sell a valuable product on a competitive market, and its lack

of specific knowledge regarding how Ward would process the

transformers, the “knowledge” factor is of no aid to Consol and

PCS.

In sum, Consol and PCS fail under Burlington to adduce

record evidence creating any genuine issue of material fact as

46 to whether Georgia Power sold the transformers “with the

intention that at least a portion of the product be disposed of

within the statutory definition of disposal. 556 U.S. at 612.

The Pneumo Abex factors, whether examined individually or

holistically, also favor Georgia Power. Given the district

court’s “fact-intensive and case-specific” analysis, we find no

error in its award of summary judgment in favor of Georgia Power

on this issue.

C. Savannah Electric Transformers

Applying the same analysis, we find the circumstances as to

the sale of the Savannah Electric transformers fall squarely on

the side of a legitimate sale and against arranger liability.

The 20 Savannah Electric transformers were in “perfectly good

working order” and “were simply de-energized and sold with no

record of any problems or defects.” (Id. at 2233.) The record

appears to reflect that the Savannah Electric transformers were

operational at the time of sale and could have been used without

adjustment if they fit a particular customer’s KVA requirements.

The record evidence indicates only that Savannah Electric

intended for the transformers to be reused entirely (factor 1);

that the transformers retained significant value (factor 2);

that the transformers were in a useful condition (factor 3); and

47 that they were not leaking (factor 4). While Ward opted to

rebuild some of the transformers, that decision was made to meet

customer orders and reveals nothing about Savannah Electric’s

intent at the time of the original sale.

On this record, the Pneumo Abex factors counsel against

arranger liability and do not support the inference that

Savannah Electric’s intent was to dispose of PCBs. Accordingly,

the district court did not err in awarding summary judgment to

Georgia Power.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the circumstances

of the transformer sales by Georgia Power and Savannah Electric

do not indicate the intent to dispose of PCBs and therefore do

not support arranger liability. The judgment of the district

court is

AFFIRMED.

48 WYNN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

In 1983 and 1984, Georgia Power Company (“Georgia Power”)

sold Ward Transformer Company (“Ward Transformer”) over one

hundred electrical transformers at “scrapping” auctions. The

used transformers were in various stages of disrepair and

contained varying amounts of oil tainted with polychlorinated

biphenyls (“PCBs”)—potent human carcinogens “linked to skin

cancer, liver cancer, brain cancer, intestinal cancer, bladder

cancer, leukemia, birth defects in humans and animals, and other

health problems.” United States v. Gen. Elec. Co., 670 F.3d

377, 379 n.1 (1st Cir. 2012). Georgia Power knew that to

function as transformers again, its broken and obsolete

transformers would have to be opened and repaired, and toxic

oil-saturated parts replaced.

Ward Transformer’s rebuilding and refurbishment of the

transformers it purchased “inevitably” resulted in the disposal

of PCBs at its facility. Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Alcan

Aluminum Corp., 921 F. Supp. 2d 488, 494 n.14 (E.D.N.C. 2013).

Since 2005, over 400,000 tons of soil have been removed from the

Ward Transformer site and millions of dollars expended to

mitigate the contamination wrought by PCB-laden oil.

A party who arranges the disposal of hazardous materials

may be liable for response costs under the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

49 (“CERCLA”). The Supreme Court recently made clear that intent

is central to the question of arranger liability. Burlington N.

& Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599, 609-13

(2009). This Court has long made equally clear that “subjective

states and objective manifestations of intention present

interpretive issues traditionally understood to be for the trier

of fact.” Charbonnages de France v. Smith, 597 F.2d 406, 415

(4th Cir. 1979) (reversing summary judgment where intent was at

issue).

At the heart of this CERCLA case, then, is Georgia Power’s

intent. Today the majority holds as a matter of law that a

power company who, in its own words, “dispose[s] of” “scrap[]”

electrical transformers known to contain varying levels of

hazardous substances does not intend even in part to “dispose

of” hazardous substances within the meaning of CERCLA. Viewing

the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving

parties, as we must on summary judgment, however, a rational

finder of fact could conclude otherwise.

I.

Congress enacted CERCLA in 1980 “in response to the serious

environmental and health risks posed by industrial pollution.”

Burlington Northern, 556 U.S. at 602. At the time, Congress was

confronting a “legacy of past haphazard disposal of chemical

50 wastes and the continuing danger of spills” which posed what

some called “the most serious health and environmental challenge

of the decade.” Alexandra B. Klass, From Reservoirs to

Remediation: The Impact of CERCLA on Common Law Strict Liability

Environmental Claims, 39 Wake Forest L. Rev. 903, 927 (2004)

(citing Report of the Comm. on Env't and Pub. Works, S. Rep. No.

96-848, at 2 (2d Sess. 1980)). Among the hazardous substances

being improperly disposed of at the time were PCBs.

By enacting CERCLA, Congress sought to provide “a mechanism

for clean up of sites polluted with hazardous waste” as well as

“a mechanism by which a governmental entity or private party may

recover the cost of clean up from all parties responsible for

the pollution of the site.” Pneumo Abex Corp. v. High Point,

Thomasville & Denton R. Co., 142 F.3d 769, 774 (4th Cir. 1998)

(citing 42 U.S.C. § 9607; 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)) (emphasis added).

As courts have repeatedly emphasized, CERCLA is a remedial

statute and thus “must be given a broad interpretation to effect

its ameliorative goals.” First United Methodist Church of

Hyattsville v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 882 F.2d 862, 867 (4th Cir.

1989); see also B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Murtha, 958 F.2d 1192, 1198

(2d Cir. 1992) (stating that because CERCLA is a remedial

statute, it must be “construed liberally” to achieve its

purpose). This remains true even if faithful application of

CERCLA may, at times, yield seemingly harsh results. Cf. Matter

51 of Bell Petroleum Servs., Inc., 3 F.3d 889, 897 (5th Cir. 1993)

(noting that, under CERCLA liability is “[o]ften . . . imposed

upon entities for conduct predating the enactment of CERCLA, and

even for conduct that was not illegal, unethical, or immoral at

the time it occurred.”) (citations omitted).

With that background in mind, I turn to the CERCLA

provision at issue here.

II.

A.

Central to this case is CERCLA’s arranger liability

provision. Specifically, among the “covered persons” liable

under CERCLA for recovery costs are persons who “arranged for

the disposal . . . of hazardous substances.” 42 U.S.C.

§ 9607(a)(3). “[A]rranger liability was intended to deter and,

if necessary, to sanction parties seeking to evade liability by

‘contracting away’ responsibility.” Gen. Elec. Co., 670 F.3d at

382. Arranger liability thus “ensures that owners of hazardous

substances may not free themselves from liability by selling or

otherwise transferring a hazardous substance to another party

for the purpose of disposal.” Team Enters., LLC v. W. Inv. Real

Estate Trust, 647 F.3d 901, 907 (9th Cir. 2011).

CERCLA does not define “arrange.” In Burlington Northern,

the Supreme Court held some amount of intent inheres in the word

52 “arrange” and that an arranger must therefore intend, at least

in part, to dispose of a hazardous substance for CERCLA

liability to attach. Arranger liability thus turns on a fact-

sensitive analysis of the defendant’s state-of mind—a type of

analysis rarely appropriate for summary judgment. See

Charbonnages, 597 F.2d at 415. Not surprisingly, then,

Burlington Northern was the product of a trial—a six-week bench

trial culminating in “507 separate findings of fact and

conclusions of law.” 556 U.S. at 605. On appeal, the Ninth

Circuit recognized that “disposal of hazardous wastes” was “not

the purpose” of Shell Oil’s transactions. Id. at 606-07

(emphasis added). Nevertheless, the court affirmed the trial

courts holding of arranger liability. The Supreme Court

reversed, holding that to qualify as an arranger under CERCLA,

the party must have intended, at least in part, to dispose of

hazardous substances. Id.

In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court relied on

United States v. Cello–Foil Prods., Inc., for the proposition

that “‘state of mind’” plays an “‘indispensable role’” in

determining whether a party qualifies as an arranger.

Burlington Northern, 556 U.S. at 611 (quoting 100 F.3d 1227,

1231 (6th Cir. 1996)). In light of the Supreme Court’s

favorable citation to Cello-Foil, this case is worth examining

in some detail.

53 In Cello-Foil, a solvent company shipped solvents in re-

usable drums, charging customers a deposit that would be

refunded upon the drums’ return. 100 F.3d at 1230. Many

customers returned drums with residual amounts of solvent

inside. Id. “Some of the drums’ contents had been emptied as

much as possible, some had been refilled with water, and some

contained unused solvents of up to fifteen gallons.” Id. In

most cases, the solvent company would simply pour any remaining

contents of the drums onto the ground. Id. But nothing

indicated that the customers knew how the solvent company

handled residual solvents left in the drums.

The government brought an action to recover response costs

from several solvent purchasers, alleging that they had

“arranged for” the disposal of hazardous substances when they

returned their drums in exchange for the deposit. Id. The

district court granted summary judgment to the solvent

purchasers, stating that “the purpose of Defendants’ returning

of the drums was to recover the deposits that Defendants had

paid; the Government has absolutely no proof that Defendants’

purpose was to dispose of residual amounts of hazardous

substances remaining in those drums.” Id. at 1233. The Sixth

Circuit reversed, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to

whether the customers faced arranger liability under CERCLA.

Id. at 1230.

54 Notably, in concluding that the district court “acted too

hastily in finding no showing of intent [as a matter of law],”

the court cited Fourth Circuit precedent counseling that “issues

regarding parties’ intent . . . ‘present interpretive issues

traditionally understood to be for the trier of fact.’” Id. at

1234 (quoting Charbonnages, 597 F.2d at 415). Even though, in

the eyes of the court, the customers’ primary purpose in

returning the drums was to recover their deposits, the Sixth

Circuit nonetheless found that a reasonable factfinder could

infer that a “further purpose was to dispose of the residual

wastes returned with the drums.” Id. at 1233.

B.

Rather than heed the advice of Cello-Foil and defer

resolving the question of intent until after trial, the majority

concludes that no reasonable finder of fact could infer that

Georgia Power intended to “dispose of” PCB-tainted oil within

the meaning of CERCLA when it, in its own words, “disposed of”

and “scrapp[ed]” its “surplus, obsolete or damaged” transformers

by auctioning them off with varying amounts of PCB-tainted oil

inside. J.A. 1331, 1329. In reviewing Georgia Power’s motion

for summary judgment, we are bound to view the facts in the

light most favorable to Appellants PCS Phosphate Company (“PCS”)

and Consolidation Coal Company (“Consol”) and to draw all

reasonable inferences in their favor. Garofolo v. Donald B.

55 Heslep Assocs., Inc., 405 F.3d 194, 198 (4th Cir. 2005). Doing

so here, and with an eye to the case law discussed above, leads

to the conclusion that Georgia Power’s motion for summary

judgment should have been denied. Specifically, a reasonable

finder of fact could infer from the record evidence that Georgia

Power sold its used transformers not just for economic gain but

also for the purpose of disposing of the PCBs contained therein.

Many of the transformers at issue were nothing more than

“usable carcasses,” while others would have to be “completely

rebuilt.” J.A. 1279. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, Georgia

Power left the transformers at issue exposed to the elements,

knowing that moisture exposure could cripple the transformers’

ability to function. Some of Georgia Power’s transformers ended

up with an “oil residue & rainwater mixture” inside of them.

J.A. 1427. Such moisture to a transformer is “basically like

cancer to a person” as it is “the number one cause of failures.”

J.A. 1250. Georgia Power referred to its sale of the

transformers as “scrapping” and “disposing of” them. J.A. 1331.

And it sold the transformers with no minimum price and no

warranties other than as to title.

Further, while Georgia Power drained some of its

transformers of insulating oil, some still contained gallons of

oil even after being drained. Indeed, one of the drained

transformers had “about 5 [gallons]” of 17.4 parts per million

56 (“ppm”) PCB oil in it after arriving at Ward Transformer.

Others were not drained at all. J.A. 2225. In fact, though

regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976

(“TSCA”) prohibited Georgia Power from selling transformers

containing greater than 50 ppm PCB oil, Ward Transformer’s

records show that one of Georgia Power’s transformers arrived

with 488 ppm PCB oil still inside. Significantly, any oil-laden

transformers would have to be drained by Ward Transformer before

any internal components could be repaired or replaced. Ward

Transformer’s records indicate that on at least one occasion,

Ward Transformer replaced the free-flowing oil contained in

Georgia Power’s transformers with new oil. Supra at 21.

What is more, Georgia Power had a keen awareness of the PCB

contents of its transformers and their hazardous nature. It

also knew from its own employees’ experiences that transformer

repairs were likely to result in the spilling and disposal of

oil. Significantly, the district court described such disposal

events at the Ward Transformer facility as “inevitable.”

Carolina Power & Light Co., 921 F. Supp. 2d at 494 n.14.

In this Circuit, we have long recognized that “subjective

states and objective manifestations of intent . . . present

interpretive issues traditionally understood to be for the trier

of fact.” Charbonnages, 597 F.2d at 415 (citing Cram v. Sun

Ins. Office, Ltd., 375 F.2d 670, 674 (4th Cir. 1967)); see also,

57 e.g., Gen. Analytics Corp. v. CNA Ins. Cos., 86 F.3d 51, 54 (4th

Cir. 1996) (citation omitted) (“[D]etermining intent is fact-

intensive, and when the circumstantial evidence of a person’s

intent is ambiguous, the question of intent cannot be resolved

on summary judgment.”).

As in Cello-Foil, Georgia Power may well have disposed of

the transformers at issue here for economic gain. That the

arrangement was economically beneficial does not, however, mean

that it was not also intended as a way of getting rid of

hazardous materials. A transaction may have multiple purposes,

and a reasonable finder of fact could determine here that in

selling its transformers to Ward Transformer, Georgia Power

intended to “dispose of” the used transformers and the PCB-laden

oil therein.

C.

In reaching the opposite conclusion, the majority accords

essentially no significance to Georgia Power’s use of terms like

“dispose” and “scrapping” to describe its treatment of the

transformers it sold to Ward Transformer. It is true that

Burlington Northern instructs courts to look “beyond the

parties’ characterization of the transaction as a ‘disposal’ or

a ‘sale’ and seeks to discern whether the arrangement was one

Congress intended to fall within the scope of CERCLA’s strict-

liability provisions.” 556 U.S. at 610. However, this does not

58 give courts license to ignore the language that the parties use

to describe their own actions, particularly given the

“indispensable role that state of mind must play in determining

whether a party has otherwise arranged for disposal . . . of

hazardous substances.” 556 U.S. at 611 (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted).

In Pneumo Abex, we identified several factors courts have

looked to in determining the intent of a transaction, i.e., to

discern whether it “was for the discard of hazardous substances”

or “for the sale of valuable materials”: whether the materials

were to be reused entirely or reclaimed and then reused; the

value of the materials sold; the usefulness of the materials in

the condition in which they were sold; and the state of the

product at the time of transferal. Pneumo Abex, 142 F.3d at 775

(citations omitted). Contrary to the majority opinion, applying

the factors set out in Pneumo Abex do not support the

determination that the intent of these transactions can be

determined as a matter of law.

Regarding the first factor, the parties could not have

intended that the Georgia Power’s transformers would be used “in

their entirety.” Id. For Ward Transformer to “reuse” Georgia

Power’s transformers, nearly half of which were identified as

“scrap” or “faulty”, J.A. 650–51, 658, 667, Ward Transformer had

to open the transformers and replace worn-out and broken PCB-

59 tainted parts. This stands in stark contrast to the pesticides

at issue in Burlington Northern, which were an “unused, useful

product” in their present condition. 556 U.S. at 612.

Regarding the second factor—“the value of the materials

sold”—the majority opinion suggests that this factor favors

Georgia Power because Ward Transformer was able to resell the

transformers at a profit. However, a party is not absolved of

liability as an arranger merely because it is able to identify

some market, however small, for a product containing the

hazardous substances it seeks to discard. And as already

discussed, a transaction may have multiple motivations,

including economic gain and disposal of hazardous substances. 1

The third Pneumo Abex factor looks to the “usefulness of

F.3d at 775. This factor is crucial to assessing the intent of

1 The majority also points to NCR Corp. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., as supporting summary judgment for Georgia Power here. 768 F.3d 682, 706 (7th Cir. 2014). In NCR, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that a paper company which sold a hazardous byproduct of the paper manufacturing process to a recycling mill was not liable as an arranger under CERCLA. Importantly, however, the district court there had conducted a trial on the issue of arranger liability and found that “[the paper company’s] main purpose in selling broke was not to get rid of it, but instead to place it on a competitive market and recoup some of its costs of production.” Id. at 705. The Seventh Circuit correctly recognized that it could disturb this factual finding only if it were clearly erroneous, which it was not. Here, by contrast, there has been no trial, and we must construe all the facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of Consol and PCS.

60 an arranger because a party selling a product that is useful in

its present condition quite clearly does not contemplate the

disposal of hazardous substances through the sale. Many of

Georgia Power’s transformers were not useful in the condition in

which they were sold. Many had to be “remanufactured, which

included removing defective parts” that would have been dripping

with PCB-tainted oil. J.A. 3407. Additionally, repair to the

core and coils of these transformers would have required Ward

Transformer to “drain” the transformers of any free-flowing oil

so that the core and coil could be removed. J.A. 1002. 2

2 In its decision below, the district court relied in large part on Florida Power & Light Co. v. Allis Chalmers Corp., 893 F.2d 1313, 1319 (11th Cir. 1990), for the proposition that Georgia Power’s surplus transformers were useful “in the condition in which thy were sold.” Pneumo Abex, 142 F.3d at 775. According to the district court, Florida Power & Light held that “forty year-old transformers with PCB-laden oil, sold as scrap at the end of their useful lives, were still a useful product at the their sale to a salvage company.” Carolina Power & Light Co., 921 F. Supp. 2d at 498. But that entirely mischaracterizes Florida Power & Light. In Florida Power & Light, a utility purchased transformers containing PCB-tainted oil from the manufacturers of the transformers and used them in their business for forty years. 893 F.2d at 1315. At the “end of their useful life,” the utility sold the transformer to a scrap metal company, which reclaimed the metals contained in the transformers and resold them. Id. at 1315. During the reclamation process, oil contaminated the scrap metal site. The issue the Eleventh Circuit addressed was whether the utility and the scrap metal company could recover from the original manufacturers of the transformers. Not surprisingly, the Eleventh Circuit answered that question in the negative. Indeed, as the Supreme Court recognized in Burlington Northern, “an entity could not be held liable as an arranger merely for selling a new and useful (Continued) 61 At the end of the day, this appeal comes down to the

guiding star for arranger liability: intent. Intent is

generally a question for the finder of fact, and nothing here

makes this case so unusual that it whips the intent inquiry out

of the factfinder’s province and into ours.

Viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light

most favorable to Consol and PCS, as we must on summary

judgment, a reasonable factfinder could decide that Georgia

Power intended, at least in part, to dispose of hazardous waste

when it sold Ward Transformer its used, broken, and obsolete

transformers laden with carcinogen-ridden oil at “scrapping”

auctions. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

product if the purchaser of that product later, and unbeknownst to the seller, disposed of the product in a way that led to contamination.” 556 U.S. at 610. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in favor of the manufacturers thus in no way supports the proposition that used, broken, and obsolete transformers are “useful[] . . . in the condition in which they were sold.” Pneumo Abex Corp., 142 F.3d at 775. It is also notable that the utility that sold the transformers for scrap in Florida Power & Light participated in cleanup efforts at the contaminated site. See United States v. Pepper’s Steel & Alloys, Inc., 658 F. Supp. 1160 (S.D. Fla. 1987). Thus, Florida Power & Light does not exempt Georgia Power from contributing to the cleanup costs here.