United States District Court, D. Rhode Island
William E. Smith Chief Judge.
9, 2018, the United States of America filed a Notice of
Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree between Emhart Industries,
Inc. and Black & Decker Inc. (collectively
“Emhart”), and the United States and the State of
Rhode Island (collectively “Governments”, and
together with Emhart, “the Settling Parties”),
ECF No. 671. The United States published a notice of the
Consent Decree in the Federal Register on July 13, 2018,
which began the 30-day comment period. See 83 Fed.
Reg. 32687-02. On September 25, 2018, the Governments filed a
Motion for Entry of Consent Decree (“Motion”).
ECF No. 686.
Consent Decree provides that Emhart will perform the cleanup
of the Centredale Manor Restoration Project Superfund Site
(the “Site”) and pay all of the Governments'
unrecovered past and future costs. Consent Decree ¶
V.6.a, ECF No. 671-1; see also Id. ¶ 26
(stating that the cleanup is estimated to cost $96.9
million). The Consent Decree resolves all of the United
States' and the State of Rhode Island's claims
against Emhart under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, 42
U.S.C. §§ 9601-75 (“CERCLA”), and Rhode
Island General Laws §§ 23-18.9-1 et seq., 23-19.1-1
et seq., and 23-19.14-1 et seq., respectively. Id.
¶¶ 71, 83-85. The Consent Decree further resolves
Emhart's claims against the United States regarding the
Site. Id. ¶ 78.
response to the Governments' Motion for Entry of Consent
Decree, Emhart filed a Notice of Non-Opposition, noting that
it does not oppose the Motion but it also does not
“acquiesce to any of the statements in the motion or
its supporting memorandum about historical operations at
the” Site. Emhart's Notice of Non-Opposition 2, ECF
No. 691. A group of Third-Party Defendantsfiled a response
requesting that the Court allow briefing and issue an order
regarding the availability of a Section 107 cause of action
(or any other avenue for establishing joint and several
liability with Third-Party Defendants) to the Settling
Defendants before the Court acted on the Motion for Entry of
the Consent Decree. See Eli Lilly and Co.'s
Resp. to Mot. for Entry of Consent Decree 12-13, ECF No. 690.
A second group of Third-Party Defendants and/or
Cross-Defendants filed a Motion in Opposition to the Motion
for Entry of Consent Decree addressing several additional
issues. See Mem. in Opp'n to Mot. of the United
States and Rhode Island for Entry of Consent Decree, ECF No.
693. The Governments and Emhart filed replies. See
United States' and Rhode Island's Reply to Resp. in
Opp'n to Mot. for Entry of Consent Decree, ECF No. 696;
Emhart's Resp. to Opp'n to Mot. of the United States
and Rhode Island for Entry of Consent Decree, ECF No. 697.
thorough review of the 2012 Record of Decision (the
“ROD”) (ECF No. 671-2), Consent Decree (ECF No.
671-1), Statement of Work (ECF No. 671-3), the United
States' Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 555), all
parties' briefing related to the Consent Decree, and the
representations made at the March 19, 2019 hearing on this
Motion, the Court concludes that the remedial action
described in the ROD, when viewed in light of how the
Statement of Work and Consent Decree propose to effectuate
that remedial action, is not inconsistent with CERCLA and the
National Contingency Plan. Moreover, the Court concludes that none
of the arguments presented by Third-Party Defendants in their
Oppositions poses an obstacle to approving the Consent to
Decree at this time.
the Court vacates its Phase II Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law (ECF No. 548), approves the Consent Decree
as fair, reasonable, and consistent with the goals of CERCLA,
and enters the Consent Decree as Final Judgment. The Court
has concluded that this Consent Decree has been negotiated in
good faith and implementation of this Consent Decree will
“expedite the cleanup of the Site and will avoid
further prolonged and complicated litigation between
the” Settling Parties, and that it “is fair,
reasonable, and in the public interest.” See
Consent Decree ¶ I.O. A Memorandum of Decision further
explaining the Court's reasoning will be forthcoming.
 Eli Lilly and Company, BNC LLC
(successor to BNS Company), The Original Bradford Soap Works,
Inc., Cranston Print Works Company, Hexagon Metrology, Inc.,
Eastern Color & Chemical Co., Teknor Apex Company, CNA
Holdings LLC, Olin Corporation, Phibro Animal Health
Corporation, Henkel Corporation, Indusol Inc., IVAX LLC, BASF
Corporation, Union Oil Company of California, Exxon Mobil
Corporation, and Organic Dyestuffs Corporation. See
Eli Lilly and Co.'s Resp. to Mot. for Entry of Consent
Decree 3 n.1, ECF No. 690.
 CNA Holdings LLC, BASF Corporation,
BNS LLC (formerly BNS Company), Cranston Print Works Company,
Exxon Mobil Corporation, Organic Dyestuffs Corporation,
Teknor Apex Company, The Original Bradford Soap Works, Inc.,
and Union Oil Company of California. See Mem. in
Opp'n to Mot. of the United States and Rhode Island for
Entry of Consent Decree 2 & n.1, ECF No. 693. Phibro
Animal Health Corporation, Eastern Color and Chemical
Company, Henkel Corp., Indusol, Inc., IVAX LLC, and Olin
Corporation joined this opposition in part. See
Notice of Partial Joinder in Mem. in Opp'n to Mot. of the
United States and Rhode Island for Entry of Consent Decree
filed by CNA Holdings LLC, ECF No. 694.
 For example, the Court expects the
parties will consider and implement the reclassification of
groundwater in line with the state groundwater classification
system. See Statement of Work ...