Law and the Environment : Environmental Lawyer & Attorney : Foley Hoag Law Firm : Boston, Washington D.C.

Recently, I expressed concern that District Courts, which traditionally have never seen a CERCLA plaintiff they didn’t like, would ignore the Supreme Court’s Burlington Northern decision – at least until there is another Supreme Court decision affirming that Supremes really meant the two-part holding in Burlington Northern: (1) divisibility isn’t that hard and (2) parties aren’t liable as arrangers unless they actually intended to dispose of hazardous material. 

Although it shouldn’t be earthshaking, I was therefore encouraged to see last week’s decision in Schiavone v. Northeast Utilities Service Company. In Schiavone, the defendants sold used transformers to a scrap yard. Their policy was to drain the transformers before sale. The Court concluded that there remained a material dispute whether the defendants sent PCB-containing transformers to the site. Nonetheless, the Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that there was no evidence that the defendants intended to dispose of PCBs. Citing to Burlington Northern, the Court stated that:

The defendants’ specific intent to dispose of the transformers themselves is not enough to make them “arrangers” under § 9607(a), even if the defendants had knowledge that oil was in the used transformers when they sold them…. The plaintiffs have produced no evidence that could support a conclusion that the defendants had as a purpose in their dealings with [the scrap yard] disposing of transformer oil containing PCBs.  Consequently, the plaintiffs have not created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants arranged for the disposal of a hazardous substance.

Sometimes, justice does triumph. I am hopeful that arranger cases where the defendant wasn’t actually intending to dispose of hazardous substances will start to fade away. I remain less optimistic about the divisibility side of Burlington Northern, but one can always hope.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Sometimes, good lawyering does matter. When DVL found PCBs on its property in Fort Edward, New York, and when it looked up and realized that GE had operated a manufacturing facility which utilized PCBs “almost adjacent” to DVL’s property, DVL and its attorneys may have thought that they had a slam dunk case on liability. Not so fast. Last week, in DVL v. General Electric, Judge Lawrence Kahn awarded GE summary judgment on liability, because DVL had failed to provide even enough evidence of GE’s liability to survive summary judgment. 

DVL did have more than just GE’s proximity on its side. The types of PCB Aroclors used by GE at its facility were the same as were found at the DVL property. There was contamination on GE’s property. However, GE denied disposing of its contamination on DVL’s property, DVL never saw any GE capacitors on its property, and groundwater wells installed by GE on DVL property to determine if contaminated groundwater had migrated off of GE’s property were non-detect for PCBs. 

Unfortunately for DVL, that was the limit of its evidence. It did obtain a declaration from James Ludlam, an employee of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, who clearly is no fan of GE, and who stated that GE wastes were at the DVL property. However, DVL did not identify Mr. Ludlam as an expert and Mr. Ludlam had no personal knowledge that GE disposed of anything at the Site. Judge Kahn ruled that DVL was improperly trying to parlay a lay witness into an undisclosed expert witness and struck Mr. Ludlam’s declarations. 

Judge Kahn agreed that liability under CERCLA can be based solely on circumstantial evidence, “especially where the passage of time has made direct evidence difficult or impossible to obtain.” Nonetheless, he concluded that the circumstantial evidence proffered by DVL was not enough to establish its prima facie case. DVL’s case was basically that GE manufactured the types of PCBs found at the DVL property and that its historical disposal practices were, shall we say, messy. Judge Kahn concluded that this was not enough to establish that GE’s wastes had been disposed of at the DVL property. 

Evidence that merely “presents probabilities rather than proof,” “relies upon a collection of facts that could be summarized as ’if it is there, it must be theirs,’” or is “vague and imprecise, of questionable reliability, and therefore not sufficiently probative to create an issue for trial” is insufficient to hold a party liable under CERCLA. 

I think that the decision in DVL v. GE is probably correct. However, it’s hard not to be left with a nagging feeling that the PCBs probably were from the GE facility and that DVL was not well-served by its lawyers. DVL clearly did some looking, because they had a declaration from someone who used to play in the area.  However, were there really no former employees of GE or employees of any waste handlers of GE who could have testified? How about more sophisticated analytical work that would have not merely confirmed that the PCBs were the same Aroclors as used by GE, but were somehow fingerprinted as being the same as the PCBs found in the soil at the GE site? 

If this case stands for anything, it’s that the details matter; the actual evidence matters.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As the holiday approaches, I am particularly thankful that I am not counsel to the Washington State DOT in United States v. Washington State DOT, a case that continues to make me want to take EPA, DOJ, and United States District Judge Robert Bryan by the neck and ask them what the heck are they thinking. 

In July, I posted about Judge Bryan’s decision holding that the Washington DOT “arranged” for the disposal of hazardous substances by designing and operating a highway drainage system that deposited highway runoff containing hazardous substances into what became the Commencement Bay Superfund Site. As I noted then, the logic of that decision is that every Clean Water Act stormwater problem is now potentially a Superfund claim and every highway department – and every private developer with a parking lot – potentially faces not just stormwater enforcement, but a Superfund cost recovery suit. 

Last week, Judge Bryan issued another decision regarding the DOT’s potential arranger liability. Although his earlier decision held that Washington DOT had arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances through the design of its highway drainage systems, the court had not actually found the DOT liable under § 107(a)(3) of CERCLA. The DOT argued that, even if it arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances, the United States hasn’t “established a connection between the hazardous substances found at the [DOT] Property and the response costs incurred at the [Superfund site].” 

Judge Bryan wasn’t buying it. Instead, Judge Bryan concluded that, where plaintiff can establish contamination at defendant’s property that is at least similar to contamination at the Superfund site, and can establish a “plausible migration pathway by which the contaminant could have traveled from the defendant’s facility to the plaintiff’s site,” plaintiff has met its burden. The burden then shifts to the defendant to create a genuine issue of fact regarding causation.

Judge Bryan further concluded that it is up to the trial court to determine when to consider divisibility and apportionment defenses, and noted that “it would be consistent with the purposes of CERCLA to first fix liability and then determine any divisibility/apportionment defense based on causation.”

In other words, design a stormwater drainage system that directs contamination towards an area that needs a cleanup, and you are in Superfund litigation up to your neck until the final verdict is rendered.

Thanks, but no thanks.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Sometimes, the practice of environmental law just takes my breath away. A decision issued earlier last month in United States v. Washington DOT was about as stunning as it gets. Ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, Judge Robert Bryan held that the Washington State Department of Transportation had “arranged” for the disposal of hazardous substances within the meaning of CERCLA by designing state highways with stormwater collection and drainage structures, where those drainage structures ultimately deposited stormwater containing hazardous substances into Commencement Bay -- now, a Superfund site -- in Tacoma, Washington.  

I’m sorry, but if that doesn’t make you sit up and take notice, then you’re just too jaded. Under this logic, isn’t everyone who constructs a parking lot potentially liable for the hazardous substances that run off in stormwater sheet flow? 

For those who aren’t aware, phosphorus, the stormwater contaminant du jour, is a listed hazardous substance under Superfund. Maybe EPA doesn’t need to bother with new stormwater regulatory programs. Instead, it can just issue notices of responsibility to everyone whose discharge of phosphorus has contributed to contamination of a river or lake.

The Court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment regarding whether the discharges of contaminated stormwater were federally permitted releases. Since the Washington DOT had an NPDES permit, it argued that it was not liable under § 107(j) of CERCLA. However, as the Court noted, even if the DOT might otherwise have a defense, if any of the releases occurred before the permit issued – almost certain, except in the case of newer roads – or if any discharges violated the permit, then the Washington DOT would still be liable and would have the burden of establishing a divisibility defense. 

If one were a conspiracy theorist, one might wonder if EPA were using this case to gently encourage the regulated community to support its recent efforts to expand its stormwater regulatory program. Certainly, few members of the regulated community would rather defend Superfund litigation than comply with a stormwater permit.

You can’t make this stuff up. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Those of us who have practiced in the Superfund arena for some time know that the government, in those rare cases where it has been forced to litigate, has used the same oral argument in every case: “Good morning, your honor. My name is ______. I represent the government in this action and we win.” Today, the Supreme Court made clear that that the government now needs a new oral argument template.

In Burlington Northern v. United States, the Supreme Court issued two important decisions in one. First, the Court held that a defendant must actually intend its waste to be disposed of before it can be found liable as an arranger under § 107(a)(3) of CERCLA. The facts were these. Shell Oil sold pesticides to Brown & Bryant, Inc., which operated a chemical distribution business. As part of the transfer of pesticides from Shell to B&B, some pesticides were released on the property. There was evidence that Shell knew that releases were a regular part of the transfer process. Both the District Court and Appeals Court concluded that Shell’s knowledge that releases occurred was enough to establish arranger liability.

Noting that CERCLA does not define the term “arrange[e] for”, the Court looked the phrase’s ordinary meaning. Doing so, the Court concluded that liability may attach only where the defendant “takes intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance.” The government argued that, because the defendant knew that disposal was the inevitable result of its sale of product to the site owner, the defendant had “intended” disposal to occur. The Court rejected this argument. The Court was very clear: The defendant “must have entered into the sale of [the product] with the intention that at least a portion of the product be disposed during the transfer process.”

The direct holding with respect to Shell will be important in a number of cases and is helpful in setting a fairly bright line on arranger liability. Even beyond the immediate holding, however, I wonder what, if anything, this case means for what is known as transshipment liability. Under section 107(a)(3), a person is liable as an arranger if they

arranged for disposal or treatment … of hazardous substance owned or possessed by such person, by any other party or entity, at any facility or incineration vessel owned or operated by another party…

It has always seemed to me that the plain reading of § 107(a)(3) is that the defendant must have “arranged” for the disposal of the hazardous substances at the site where disposal occurred. In those not uncommon situations where the site operator transshipped the waste – without the generator’s knowledge or consent – the generator should not be liable under CERCLA at the transshipment site, because it did not intend for any disposal at the transshipment site. Given the Supreme Court’s emphasis on what the generator intended, I think that, in the right case, a transshipment generator defendant would stand a pretty good chance of winning, if he or she were willing to litigate the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. 

I hope someone will and I hope I’m right. 

The second holding in Burlington Northern may be of even more practical significance. In it, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the District Court’s original divisibility finding with respect to the Burlington Northern Railroad. The District Court used a simple formula based on percentage of the site owned by Burlington Northern and the percentage of time that Burlington Northern leased the land as compared to the total duration of site operations. What’s most significant is that the Court did not even require any significant analysis to uphold the District Court; Justice Stevens’ opinion merely stated that there was evidence that contribution from the railroad parcel to the overall contribution was limited, so that, “[w]ith these background facts in mind, we are persuaded that it was reasonable for the court to use the size of the leased parcel and the duration of the lease as the starting point for its analysis.”

This seems obvious, but is probably a game changer in government Superfund litigation. The overwhelming tenor of lower court opinions has been that the defendant’s burden in a divisibility argument is almost overwhelming and that the burden will be satisfied in the rarest of cases and only upon almost perfect evidence of divisibility. The Supreme Court has made clear that that is simply not the case. Superfund cases are no different than other cases and there is no unstated higher burden of proof. 

Thus, while a district court judge might still be affirmed if he or she concludes that the defendant did not meet its burden of proving divisibility, the real import of the decision is that now district court judges need not fear that they will be automatically reversed if they do conclude that the harm is divisible. Given the standard stated in Burlington Northern, it might go too far to say that most cases will be divisible, but divisibility findings should not be at all rare – and that’s definitely news.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Two recent decisions from the Southern District of Texas make clear that, like pornography, the courts know arranger liability under CERCLA when they see it. Both cases involve defendants in private cost recovery actions arising out the Tex Tin Superfund Site in Texas City, Texas. The Tex Tin Settling Defendants Steering Committee (known by the mellifluous acronym TTSDSC) brought suit against Dow Chemical and Bayer USA, alleging that each had arranged for the disposal of hazardous materials at the Tex Tin Site. Dow Chemical obtained summary judgment that it was not liable for its shipments of hydrochloric acid – HCl – to the Site. Bayer Chemical was not so lucky. The Court denied Bayer’s motion, related to its shipment of nickel catalyst to the Site.

The Court began each decision acknowledging that decisions regarding arranger liability are necessarily site- and fact-specific. It then enumerated the relevant factors, which include: “whether the person (1) intended to engage in a transaction for the purpose of waste disposal; (2) owned or possessed the waste; (3) had some actual involvement in the decision to dispose of the waste, or, alternatively had an obligation to control the disposal of the waste; (4) and/or controlled the waste disposal regardless of whether it owned or possessed the waste.” The Court also noted that liability may only be imposed “if the material in question constitutes ‘waste’ rather than a 'useful product.’”

With these helpful guidelines, let’s figure out who’s liable at Tex Tin. 

Dow Chemical sent HCl to Tex Tin. Dow produced HCl as a byproduct from the manufacture of other chemical products. It thus appears that HCl production was not the primary intent of Dow’s operations. However, Dow did sell HCl to numerous customers and had a dedicated Marketing Manager for HCl sales. The HCl was used the by Tex Tin site operators without any further processing.

Bayer send nickel catalyst to Tex Tin. The nickel was apparently sufficiently useful that the site operator paid Bayer $.50/pound. However, the nickel required processing at the Tex Tin site and the price paid by Tex Tin was substantially below the market price of nickel of $2.96/pound during the period of the sales to Tex Tin. Based on these facts, the court was not prepared to grant summary judgment to Bayer.

Given that these decisions were at the summary judgment stage, they both seem reasonable on their facts. It would have been interesting to see what the Court would have done if the TTSDSC had also filed a summary judgment motion against Bayer. It will also be interesting to see what happens at the trial, if the case does not settle. The bottom line is that there is no less uncertainty on this issue than there ever was – good for lawyers; not so good for clients.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link