Alcoa 2010 Annual Report Download - page 42

defendants, including AWA and SCA. SCRG filed an amended third-party complaint on August 31, 2009, and served it
on third-party defendants in mid-September 2009. AWA and SCA filed their answer to the amended third-party
complaint on October 30, 2009. On January 8, 2010, DPNR filed a motion to assert claims directly against certain
third-party defendants, including AWA and SCA. On January 29, 2010, the court granted plaintiff’s motion. On
November 15, 2010, plaintiff and all defendants filed motions for summary judgment addressing various issues relating
to liability, recoverability of costs, and divisibility of harm. The case is set for trial in March 2011. At this stage of the
proceeding, the company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.
As previously reported, on January 14, 2010, Alcoa was served with a complaint involving approximately 2,900
individual persons claimed to be residents of St. Croix who are alleged to have suffered personal injury or property
damage from Hurricane Georges or winds blowing material from the property since the time of the hurricane. This
complaint, Abednego, et al. v. Alcoa, et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, St. Croix Division.
The complaint names as defendants the same entities as were sued in the February 1999 action earlier described and
have added as a defendant the current owner of the alumina facility property. In February 2010, Alcoa and SCA
removed the case to the federal court for the District of the Virgin Islands. Subsequently, plaintiffs have filed a motion
to remand the case to territorial court as well as a third amended complaint, and defendants have moved to dismiss the
case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The company is unable to reasonably predict an
outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.
As previously reported, on September 26, 2003, Region VI of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed
an Administrative Complaint, Compliance Order and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing against the Wichita Falls,
Texas facility of Howmet Corporation (Howmet) for violations of hazardous waste regulations relating to shipments of
used potassium hydroxide to a fertilizer manufacturer from 1997 until 2000. The Complaint proposed a penalty of
$265,128. In addition, EPA ordered Howmet to cease sending used potassium hydroxide to fertilizer manufacturers or
employing used potassium hydroxide in any use constituting disposal and to certify compliance with hazardous waste
regulations within 30 days. On October 22, 2003, EPA Region II issued an almost identical Complaint, Compliance
Order and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing against Howmet’s Dover, New Jersey facility, seeking $180,021 in
penalties. Howmet filed its Answers to EPA Region VI’s and EPA Region II’s Complaints. Howmet’s Answers denied
the substance of EPA’s Complaints, requested that no penalties be imposed and requested Hearings on both the
hazardous waste allegations and the Compliance Orders. In April 2005, the administrative Court granted EPA’s
motions for partial accelerated decision with respect to both cases, finding that Howmet violated the cited regulatory
provisions alleged in the Complaints and moved the case to the penalty phase. In September 2005, EPA and Howmet
stipulated to a penalty amount of $309,091 for the consolidated matters should the finding of liability be upheld and
Howmet appealed the administrative Court’s decision to the Environmental Appeals Board. In May 2007, the
Environmental Appeals Board upheld the administrative Court’s liability finding against Howmet and assessed the
parties’ stipulated penalty of $309,091. In July 2007, Howmet appealed the Environmental Appeals Board’s decision to
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In October 2010, Howmet paid to the EPA a penalty
of $309,091 following denial of Howmet’s appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
There will be no further reporting of this matter.
As previously reported, in August 2005, Dany Lavoie, a resident of Baie Comeau in the Canadian Province of Québec,
filed a Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action and for Designation of a Class Representative against Alcoa
Canada Inc., Alcoa Limitée, Societe Canadienne de Metaux Reynolds Limitée and Canadian British Aluminum in the
Superior Court of Québec in the District of Baie Comeau. Plaintiff seeks to institute the class action on behalf of a
putative class consisting of all past, present and future owners, tenants and residents of Baie Comeau’s St. Georges
neighborhood. He alleges that defendants, as the present and past owners and operators of an aluminum smelter in Baie
Comeau, have negligently allowed the emission of certain contaminants from the smelter, specifically Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons or “PAHs”, that have been deposited on the lands and houses of the St. Georges neighborhood
and its environs causing damage to the property of the putative class and causing health concerns for those who inhabit
that neighborhood. Plaintiff originally moved to certify a class action, sought to compel additional remediation to be
conducted by the defendants beyond that already undertaken by them voluntarily, sought an injunction against further
emissions in excess of a limit to be determined by the court in consultation with an independent expert, and sought
34