used while operating the manufacturing plant on the Site. This evidence was disputed, inconclusive and ultimately unhelpful in an analysis of contribution based on ownership of facilities. Although progress payments that included indirect costs, for example, purportedly gave the Government title to the chemicals during contract periods, title to these products reverted to TDY at the conclusion of a contract. Regardless, ownership of the hazardous substance is not dispositive. In assessing the roles of the parties before the Court, the critical issue for an equitable allocation under CERCLA is control over the disposal of the contaminants at the Site, not which party held title to the contaminants. See e.g., Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States, 35 F.Supp.3d 92, 134-135 (D.D.C.2014) (<HOLDING>). Similarly the Court does not afford much
holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency to address it in the first instance holding that the critical issue is not ownership in the first instance but rather the parties respective control over the disposal of hazardous substances holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency to address in the first instance holding that because parties elected to bring the case to the appellate court in the first instance the appeal could not then be dismissed just to confer jurisdiction upon the district court to determine the issues holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency in the first instance to address