Alcoa 2011 Annual Report Download - page 49

NRD Action. As previously reported, in May 2005,AWA and SCA were among the defendants listed in a lawsuit
brought by the Commissioner of the DPNR, Dean Plaskett, in his capacity as Trustee for Natural Resources of the
Territory of the United States Virgin Islands in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix. The
complaint seeks damages for alleged injuries to natural resources caused by alleged releases from an alumina refinery
facility in St. Croix that was owned by SCA from 1995 to 2002. Also listed in the lawsuit are previous and subsequent
owners of the alumina refinery and the owners of an adjacent oil refinery. Claims are brought under CERCLA, U.S.
Virgin Islands law, and common law. The plaintiff has not specified in the complaint the amount it seeks in damages.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss in 2005. In October 2007, in an effort to resolve the liability of SCRG in the
lawsuit, as well as any other CERCLA liability SCRG may have with respect to the facility, DPNR filed a new lawsuit
against SCRG seeking the recovery of response costs under CERCLA, and the plaintiff and SCRG filed a joint
Agreement and Consent Decree. The remaining defendants each filed objections to the Agreement and Consent
Decree, and in October 2008, the court denied entry of the Agreement and Consent Decree. The court also ruled on the
motions to dismiss that were filed by all defendants in 2005. The court dismissed two counts from the complaint
(common law trespass and V.I. Water Pollution Control Act), but denied the motions with regard to the other six
counts (CERCLA, V.I. Oil Spill Prevention and Pollution Control Act, and common law strict liability, negligence,
negligence per se and nuisance). The court also ruled that the Virgin Islands Government was the proper plaintiff for
the territorial law claims and required re-filing of the complaint by the proper parties, which was done in
November 2008. The plaintiffs subsequently moved to amend their complaint further, were granted leave by the court
to do so, and filed an amended complaint on July 30, 2009. AWA and SCA filed an answer, counterclaim and cross-
claim against SCRG in response to the amended complaint in August 2009. In response to the plaintiffs’ amended
complaint, the other former owners of the alumina refinery filed answers, counterclaims, and cross-claims against
SCRG and certain agencies of the Virgin Islands Government. During July 2009, each defendant except SCRG filed a
partial motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the CERCLA cause of action on statute of limitations
grounds. In July 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part each defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The
court granted each defendant’s motion as to alleged injury to off-site groundwater and downstream surface water
resources but denied each motion as to alleged injury to on-site groundwater resources.
SCA-Only Territorial Action. As previously reported, in December 2006, SCA was sued by the Commissioner of
DPNR, U.S. Virgin Islands, in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix. The plaintiff alleges
violations of the Coastal Zone Management Act and a construction permit issued thereunder. The complaint seeks a
civil fine of $10,000 under the Coastal Zone Management Act, civil penalties of $10,000 per day for alleged intentional
and knowing violations of the Coastal Zone Management Act, exemplary damages, costs, interest and attorney’s fees,
and “other such amounts as may be just and proper.” SCA responded to the complaint on February 2, 2007 by filing an
answer and motion to disqualify DPNR’s private attorney. The court has not yet ruled on the motion.
Multi-Party Enforcement Action. As previously reported, in December 2006, SCA, along with unaffiliated prior and
subsequent owners, were sued by the Commissioner of the DPNR, U.S. Virgin Islands, in the Superior Court of the
Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix. This second suit alleges violations by the defendants of certain permits and
environmental statutes said to apply to the facility. The complaint seeks the completion of certain actions regarding the
facility, a civil fine from each defendant of $10,000 under the Coastal Zone Management Act, civil penalties of
$50,000 per day for each alleged violation of the Water Pollution Control Act, $10,000 per day for alleged intentional
and knowing violations of the Coastal Zone Management Act, exemplary damages, costs, interest and attorney’s fees,
and “other such amounts as may be just and proper.” SCA responded to the complaint on February 2, 2007 by filing an
answer and motion to disqualify DPNR’s private attorney. The parties fully briefed the motion and are awaiting a
decision from the court. In October 2007, plaintiff and defendant SCRG entered into a settlement agreement resolving
claims against SCRG. Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal with the court, and the court entered an order dismissing
SCRG on November 2, 2007. SCA objected to the dismissal and requested that the court withdraw its order, and the
parties have briefed SCA’s objection and request. A decision from the court is pending. On November 10, 2007, SCA
filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all claims in the case. The parties completed briefing of the
motion in January 2008. The court has not yet ruled on the motion.
39