B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Murtha

815 F. Supp. 539, 23 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 21081, 36 ERC (BNA) 1705, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3706, 1993 WL 15183
CourtDistrict Court, D. Connecticut
DecidedJanuary 12, 1993
DocketN-87-52 (PCD)
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 815 F. Supp. 539 (B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Murtha) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Murtha, 815 F. Supp. 539, 23 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 21081, 36 ERC (BNA) 1705, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3706, 1993 WL 15183 (D. Conn. 1993).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: LAUREL PARK COALITION MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT

DORSEY, District Judge.

The Murtha interests, consisting of family members and legal entities owned, controlled and operated by family members, owned two sites used for dumps, and contracted to accept waste and to haul waste generated by others to those sites. One site was Beacon Heights. The other site was Laurel Park. Waste from one source was not always deposited in the same site. Hazardous substances (“HS”), as now defined, were not excluded from either site. Congress required the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to identify hazardous sites, determine the necessary remediation and undertake same and/or identify the responsible parties and seek remediation by them, voluntarily or involuntarily. Consent decrees applicable, separately, to the two sites, have established primary responsibility for remediation which is in process at each site. The process, has, however, taken twelve years. Unresolved is adjudication of claims for contribution to the clean-up cost. The manipulation of the process, insensitive to litigation costs, has protracted it at substantial cost to parties without as of yet a just allocation of the remediation cost.

Coalitions of responsible parties have consented to decrees specifying the remediation for each site. The Laurel Park Coalition (“LPC”) seeks contributions, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq., as is authorized, from disposers of HS, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a), 9613(f).

*541 The coalition has moved to add, as third parties defendant, (“TPDs”) 1151 prospective contributors. The coalition has been urged to negotiate such claims since responsibility cannot be defined with precision and proof of liability and each liable party’s contribution, to be determined under § 9613(f)(1), would be difficult, time-consuming and expensive. The pending motion adds a major factor, ie., the magnitude of the claims the coalition proposes to prosecute. In anticipation of this problem, it was determined that the coalition would not be given carte blanche to inject into the court’s caseload 1151 individual suits, each with the potential for case discovery, pleadings and trial. Instead, the coalition will be allowed to implead each party against whom a claim is sufficiently substantiated, legally and factually. A claim would thus come to be processed by the court if such basis is first shown. The court and parties are thus relieved of the time and expense of processing claims not so substantiated. The coalition has objected to the process and moved to eliminate the special master who has attempted to mediate both coalitions’ contribution claims. The order does not preclude an opportunity to present claims substantiated under the test in Rule 11, Fed. R.Civ.P. The objection to the special master received the consideration it merited when the Mandamus seeking his removal was accorded a one-word denial by the Court of Appeals.

The request for leave as to the 1151 asserted contributors was reviewed by the special master in accordance with Case Management Order, #1. He recommended its denial. The matter is now presented for de novo review and determination by the court.

LPC characterizes those from whom/which contribution is sought as generators, , that is individuals, municipalities, entities, businesses and commercial and industrial sources of waste characterized as hazardous by EPA in 40 C.F.R. Part 261 or defined as such in 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14)(B), (C) (“HS”). The substances relied on by LPC are noted in Table 1 of its compliance report dated February 14, 1992 (“CR”). Table 2 sets forth the HS generated by types of businesses and whether the reliance is on § 9601(14)(B) or (C). CR at 6. Table 1 is based on the affidavit of Dr. Kirk Brown, CR Ex. A, who purports to identify HS specified under CERCLA in municipal solid wastes (“MSW”). CR at 5, n. 6. LPC claims that each Named Party, among the 1151, falls into one of the categories listed and thus “probably generated and disposed of one or more of the substances” listed and necessarily within § 9601(14), 1 because those in each category typically generated enumerated HS. CR at 5. The authority cited for that proposition are two EPA documents, Does Your Business Produce Hazardous Waste? Many Small Businesses Do, dated April 15, 1990 and attachments, and Understanding the Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Rules, dated September 1986. Neither is provided nor is any substantiation furnished for either ás accepted authority for the facts or premises asserted therein.

LPC relies on the following claims of fact:

a) Waste from household, commercial, local government or industrial sources “likely contains one or more hazardous substances listed in Tables 1 and 2.”

b) MSW contains HS listed in Table 1.

c) HS listed in Table 1 are found-in household products commonly found in MSW.

d) Commercial/industrial businesses likely generated and disposed of 2 the CERCLA HS listed in Table 1.

e) The business activities in Table 2 typically generated waste streams containing CERCLA HS.

f) The CERCLA HS in EPA identified waste streams, as per Table 2, are commonly found in municipal landfills.

*542 g) Acetone, benzene, 2-butanone, 1,1 — dichloroethane, phenol, chloride, ethylbenzene, methylene, toluene, vinyl chloride, 1,1,1 — trichloroethane and xylene are found in MSW leachate.

h) Laurel Park is a typical MSW landfill.

i) The HS in g) are found in products and wastes commonly taken to municipal landfills between 1947 to 1987.

j) The leachate at Laurel Park contains HS in g) in ranges common to MSW landfills.

k) Statements of the municipalities and government agency collectors among the 1151- describe a wide range of HS generated and disposed of by them as in CR Ex. A

l) Each municipality, but three, has conceded, in documents filed in court, the disposal of MSW at Laurel Park, that MSW contains HS and that their MSW was no different from other MSW. Waterbury, Woodbury and Shelton have not so conceded.

m) Businesses which use oils or the like, dyes, paints, ink, thinners, cleaning fluid, solvents, pesticidés or related chemicals including such as dissolve materials, flammables, irritants, materials labelled as hazardous, adhesives, acids, caustics and materials which water causes to bubble, fume or change col- or, commonly generate HS.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Goodrich Corp. v. Town Of Middlebury
311 F.3d 154 (Second Circuit, 2002)
Prisco v. Carting Corp.
168 F.3d 593 (Second Circuit, 1999)
Prisco v. A & D Carting Corp.
168 F.3d 593 (Second Circuit, 1999)
Goodrich v. Betkoski
99 F.3d 505 (Second Circuit, 1996)
Goodrich v. Betkoski
99 F.3d 505 (First Circuit, 1996)
State of NY v. Solvent Chemical Co., Inc.
875 F. Supp. 1015 (W.D. New York, 1995)
Dana Corp. v. American Standard, Inc.
866 F. Supp. 1481 (N.D. Indiana, 1994)
B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Murtha
840 F. Supp. 180 (D. Connecticut, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
815 F. Supp. 539, 23 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 21081, 36 ERC (BNA) 1705, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3706, 1993 WL 15183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bf-goodrich-co-v-murtha-ctd-1993.