Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02623/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02623-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:6901 Resource &amp; Recovery Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE NEWARK GROUP, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:08-cv-02623-GEB-DAD

)

v. ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

) MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

DOPACO, INC., ) JUDGMENT

)

Defendant. )

)

)

Plaintiff, The Newark Group, Inc. ("Newark"), moves for 

partial summary judgment on its Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(“RCRA”) claim in this RCRA citizen suit. Newark seeks an order

holding Defendant Dopaco, Inc. ("Dopaco") jointly and severally liable

for the contamination of toluene on its property. Dopaco was a former

tenant on Newark’s property before Newark purchased the property. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

When considering a summary judgment motion, all reasonable

inferences are drawn from the evidence in the non-movant's favor. 

Hart v. Parks, 450 F.3d 1059, 1065 n.4 (9th Cir. 2006). Further, the

movant “must adduce admissible evidence on all matters as to which

[it] bears the burden of proof." Zands v. Nelson ("Zands II"), 797

F.Supp. 805, 808 (S.D. Cal. 1992). 

//

//

//

Case 2:08-cv-02623-GEB-DAD Document 90 Filed 04/02/10 Page 1 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Newark requests that judicial notice be taken of “certain

standards established by federal and state environmental agencies

concerning various regulatory action levels for toluene

contamination,” and “of the fact that a chemical called Methyl

Isobutyl Ketone (‘MIBK’) is a common constituent of the types of inks

used in rotogravure printing, which is the alleged source of the

toluene contamination at issue in this case.” (Request for Judicial

Notice (“RJN”) 1.) Some of the documents are authored by the United

States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the California

Environmental Protection Agency (“California EPA”), the California

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, and the

Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council. (RJN Ex. A-F.) Two of

documents state that MIBK is used in rotogravure printing: one is

authored by the EPA and the other by Eastman Chemical Company, a

corporation that manufactures MIBK. (RJN Ex. G-H.) 

Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2) allows the court 

to take judicial notice of a fact not subject to reasonable dispute

because it is “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort

to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” The

documents authored by federal and state agencies concern federal and

state toluene standards or MIBK’s use in rotogravure printing, and

these documents come from “sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be

questioned.” New Mexico ex rel. Richardson v. BLM, 565 F.3d 683, 702

n. 22 (10th Cir. 2009)(taking judicial notice of data on web sites of

federal agencies). Therefore, Newark’s request for judicial notice of

these federal and state agency documents is granted. Id. 

The website Newark provides from Eastman Chemical Company 

Case 2:08-cv-02623-GEB-DAD Document 90 Filed 04/02/10 Page 2 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

showing that MIBK is used in “gravure printing inks” is not so easily

verifiable. (RJN Ex. H.) Therefore, this portion of Newark’s

judicial notice request is denied. 

III. Summary judgment facts considered in nonmovant’s favor

Newark is the current owner of the property located at 800

West Church Street in Stockton, California (the “Property”). Newark

purchased the Property from Gold Bond in June 1989. (Dopaco’s

Statement of Undisputed Facts (“SUF”) ¶ 1). When Gold Bond was the

owner of the Property, Dopaco was Gold Bond’s tenant in the basement

of a building on the northwest corner of the Property from 1981 to

1988. (Id. ¶ 2). “While a tenant . . . Dopaco operated a rotogravure

printing operation in the basement area it leased.” (Id. ¶ 3). 

“During its time on the Property, Dopaco used both solvent and

water-based inks and toluene was not used in conjunction with

water-based inks;” “toluene was only used by Dopaco as diluent for top

lacquer, and top lacquer[s] were not used on all printing jobs.” (Id.

¶ 4). 

Eight underground tanks are on the Property and are located 

“adjacent to the building on the northern boundary of the [P]roperty.”

(SUF ¶ 5, Avery Decl. ¶ 5.) Two of these tanks are storage product

tanks and the remaining six are waste tanks. (Id.) Dopaco stored the

toluene it used in a 4,000 gallon storage tank (“Toluene Tank”) and in

55-gallon drums. (Id. ¶ 5.) Dopaco pumped toluene from the Toluene

Tank "through piping that ran from the Toluene Tank to the interior of

the building, where it was dispensed from wall-mounted nozzles." (Id.

¶ 6.) At times “Dopaco’s rotogravure printing operation generated

waste ink that contained toluene, which was disposed of into two other

Case 2:08-cv-02623-GEB-DAD Document 90 Filed 04/02/10 Page 3 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

underground storage tanks (“waste tanks”) on the Property.” (Id. ¶

7).

The Gold Bond Property was inspected by representatives of

the California Regional Water Board, Central Valley Region (“Regional

Board”) and the San Joaquin Environmental Health Department (“SJEHD”)

on May 17 and September 23, 1985. (Id. ¶ 8) Following the

inspections, the Regional Board issued Gold Bond a Notice of Violation

(“NOV”) in 1985 concerning “a discharge of red dye into McDougald

Slough allegedly from the Gold Bond facility.” (Id.; NOV at

EHD0000722.) The NOV noted the following deficiencies when discussing

Dopaco:

1. Fifty-five gallon drums of solvent are stored

uncovered on an asphalt area adjacent to a paper

storage warehouse. Runoff from this area is

directed to McDougald Slough via the storm drain.

2. Workers in the plant stated press condensate

water is routinely poured into loading dock sump.

This sump discharges to the storm drain and

McDougald Slough.

3. Waste ink and solvents are delivered to tanks #9

and 10 via underground lines or poured directly into

the tank from drums. Considerable spillage around

the tanks was evident. The practice of dumping

waste drums into the tank by hand needs to be

upgraded to prevent spills.

 (Id.; NOV at EHD0000723)(emphasis added.) 

Subsequently, Gold Bond obtained a report authored by

environmental engineer Donald K. Rothenbaum (“Rothenbaum”), who

investigated the Property for Gold Bond in 1985 after Gold Bond

received the NOV. Rothenbaum noted the following in his report:

Ground spillage of solvent waste was very apparent

and presents a potential threat to the local ground

water quality. We strongly recommend that your

tenant, Dopaco, be requested to discontinue use of

these tanks and improve their current waste handling

practices as soon as it is practical. 

Case 2:08-cv-02623-GEB-DAD Document 90 Filed 04/02/10 Page 4 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

(Id.; Rothenbaum Decl. Ex. 1 at NEW 000996)(emphasis added). Dopaco

objects to Rothenbaum’s report, arguing it lacks foundation,

constitutes hearsay, and is speculative; however, Dopaco also

acknowledges that the report “can establish . . . that Rothenbaum saw

spillage.” (Dopaco Obj. ¶ 2.) This objection but is sustained but

the report establishes that Rothenbaum saw spillage. 

As a result of the NOV, the Regional Board and SJEHD

required Gold Bond to submit a technical report addressing the issues

discussed in the NOV. (Id. ¶ 8.) The Regional Board, SJEHD, Gold

Bond, Dopaco and another Gold Bond tenant on the Property decided that

the tanks on the Property should be excavated. (Id. ¶ 10.) 

Gold Bond retained American Environmental Management

Corporation (“AEMC”) to prepare an evacuation plan. This excavation

plan was implemented in September 1986, and involved the removal of

the six product tanks, referenced below as tanks A, B, C, D, E, and F,

and the two waste tanks referenced below as tanks G and H . (Id.) 

AEMC noted in a written report dated October 21, 1996, (“AEMC

Report”), that five of the product tanks appeared to have no leaks,

and one of the product tanks and the two waste tanks “showed signs of

leakage; ink could be seen around the tanks and the soil” and there

was a “possible leak” from one of the tanks. (SUF ¶ 10; AEMC Report

at EHD 0001853-54.) AEMC also discusses in the AEMC Report the sample

results from the excavation as follows:

[F]our of the eight removed tanks appeared to be in

excellent condition with no visible signs of rusting

or pitting. [Tanks B, C, D, and E] The remaining

four tanks (Tanks A,F,G,H) appear to be rusty, but

with no indications of leaks or holes.

. . . . 

Case 2:08-cv-02623-GEB-DAD Document 90 Filed 04/02/10 Page 5 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Newark states in its undisputed facts that Dopaco left behind on 1

the Property thirty “[(30)] barrels full of waste ink and solvents that

had accumulated in ‘vaults’ in the floor beneath one of the rotogravure

presses.” (SUF ¶ 9.) Newark asserts the environmental disclosures and

due diligence documents provided by Gold Bond in conjunction with

Newark’s purchase of the property supports this statement. (Stafford

(continued...)

6

The excavation containing the six product tanks had

no visible signs of stains, but a slight odor was

detected. Soils containing the strongest odor were

segregated from the other excavated soils.

. . . .

The second excavation (Tanks G and H) had visible

ink stains. Staining was limited, however, to a

depth of less than six inches along the sides and

bottom of the excavation. The thickest areas were

located at the top of the vertically standing tanks.

In addition, soils excavated from the waste ink

excavation were also stained with ink. The staining

was not extensive and was only due to the material

scraped off from directly adjacent to the tank.

Odors were detected in the excavation but not the

excavated soils.

(Id. at EHD0001807-08)(emphasis added). Soil samples were collected

between the eight tanks from ten to twelve feet below the tanks. (SUF

¶ 11). Although toluene was detected beneath the product tanks at

levels ranging between 3 and 36 parts per billion (“ppb”), and between

the waste tanks at levels ranging between 7 and 92 ppb, these levels

were below 100 ppb, the state minimum requiring remedial action. (Id.

¶ 10; AEMC Report at EHD0001810-11). “Based on the above,” AEMC

concluded “the results indicate that although soil contamination

exists, it is limited in degree and is not a probable threat to

groundwater.” (Id. at EHD0001812.) AEMC recommended backfilling the

excavations. (Id.)

Dopaco vacated the property in 1988, taking with it to a new

location the rotogravure presses for its printing services. (Id. ¶

18).1

Case 2:08-cv-02623-GEB-DAD Document 90 Filed 04/02/10 Page 6 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(...continued) 1

Decl., Ex. 36-37). Dopaco objects to these documents, arguing they are

unauthenticated and are hearsay. (Dopaco Obj. ¶¶ 7-8). Newark rejoins,

arguing that deposition testimony Dopaco submits with its opposition

authenticates these documents. (Newark’s Response to Dopaco’s Obj. GH). This deposition testimony, however, does not clearly reference

these documents. Therefore, Dopaco’s objection is sustained. 

7

ii. Newark’s Purchase of the Property

Newark purchased the Property from Gold Bond in 1989. (Id. ¶

1.) In 2005, a prospective purchaser of the property retained 

environmental consultant Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. ("AGE") to

take soil borings on the Property. (Id. ¶ 12). Samples taken “in the

vicinity of Dopaco’s former underground storage tanks adjacent to the

[b]asement” at a depth of fifteen to twenty feet below the ground

surface “showed up to 13,000 [parts per million (“ppm”)] of toluene in

soil, and 6,800,000 [(‘ppb’) of toluene] in groundwater.” (Id.) 

Further, MACTEC, Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (“MACTEC”), another

environmental consultant, took “additional soil and groundwater

samples adjacent to the [b]asement [which] “revealed toluene in

groundwater at 7,600 and 36,000 ppb.” (Id. ¶ 13.) Dopaco objects to

the MACTEC report, arguing it has not been authenticated and is

hearsay. (Dopaco’s Obj. ¶ 5). Dopaco, however, produced the MACTEC

report itself as Exhibit 18 to the Pulliam Declaration, which is

attached to Dopaco’s opposition brief. Dopaco therefore waives its

objection. See Ohler v. U.S., 529 U.S. 753, 755 (2000) (stating 

generally a party introducing evidence waives objection to that

evidence).

The toluene level in the soil far exceeds even the highest

state and federal regulatory cleanup standards and the toluene level

in the groundwater "far exceed[s] environmental cleanup standards set

Case 2:08-cv-02623-GEB-DAD Document 90 Filed 04/02/10 Page 7 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

by state and federal regulatory agencies." (Id. ¶¶ 15-16). These

concentrations “are in excess of levels toxic to fish and

invertebrates, and to microorganisms that might otherwise break down

the contamination, causing it to attenuate over time." (Id. ¶ 17). 

Further, “[t]he groundwater samples taken in the vicinity of the

[b]asement also detected the chemical . . . MIBK.” (Id. ¶ 14).

IV. ANALYSIS

A. RCRA Liability

“RCRA is a comprehensive statute designed to reduce or

eliminate the generation of hazardous waste and to minimize the

present and future threat to human health and the environment created

by hazardous waste. To achieve this goal, the statute empowers [the]

EPA to regulate hazardous wastes from cradle to grave, in accordance

with [RCRA's] rigorous safeguards and waste management procedures.” 

Crandall v. City and County of Denver, Colo.,--- F.3d ----, 2010 WL

430918 (10th Cir. 2010)(internal citations and quotations omitted). 

RCRA also grants private citizens standing, such as Newark, to enforce

some of the statute's provisions. See 42 U.S.C. § 6972. The Supreme

Court held in Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., that RCRA's citizen-suit

provision “permits a private party to bring suit only upon a showing

that the solid or hazardous waste at issue may present an imminent and

substantial endangerment to health or the environment.” 516 U.S. 479,

484-86 (1996)(internal citation and quotations omitted). Further,

Newark must also show that Dopaco “contributed” to the “handling,

storage, treatment, . . . or disposal” of the toluene which caused the

contamination on Newark’s Property. Lincoln Properties, Ltd. v.

Higgens, No. S-91-760DFL/GGH, 1993 WL 217429 at *12 (E.D. Cal. January

21, 1993). 

Case 2:08-cv-02623-GEB-DAD Document 90 Filed 04/02/10 Page 8 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

EPA regulations promulgated under RCRA list toluene as a

hazardous waste. 40 C.F.R. § 261.33(f). It is also undisputed that

Dopaco was a “past . . . operator” of toluene on the property. See

Singer v. Bulk Petroleum Corp., 9 F.Supp.2d 916 (N.D. Ill.

1998)(stating “Subsection (a)(1)(B) authorizes suits against all past

or present owners or operators”). 

I. Imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the 

environment

Newark argues that the toluene contamination on its 

property poses an “imminent and substantial endangerment” under RCRA.

Newark indicates in its argument that since the toluene contamination

on the Property is in excess of the standards set by the governmental

regulatory agencies, this contamination evidence is sufficient to show

the existence of a “hazardous waste which may present an imminent and

substantial endangerment to health or the environment.” 42 U.S.C §

6972(a)(1)(B). Dopaco counters that Newark’s evidentiary showing is

insufficient because it does not contain evidence that health or the

environment is at risk, or that a “pathway” exists for exposure of the

contamination to humans or the environment. 

Dopaco’s argument concerns terms used in 42 U.S.C §

6972(a)(1)(B). “A finding of ‘imminency’ [under 42 U.S.C §

6972(a)(1)(B)] does not require a showing that actual harm will occur

immediately so long as the risk of threatened harm is present: “An

‘imminent hazard’ may be declared at any point in a chain of events

which may ultimately result in harm to the public [or the

environment].” Price v. United States Navy, 39 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th

Cir. 1994) (internal citation omitted). “Imminence refers ‘to the

nature of the threat rather than identification of the time when the

Case 2:08-cv-02623-GEB-DAD Document 90 Filed 04/02/10 Page 9 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

endangerment initially arose.’” Id. (citing United States v. Price,

688 F.2d 204, 213 (3d Cir. 1982)(quoting H.R.Committee Print No.

96-IFC 31, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. at 32 (1979))). Further, 

‘Substantial’ does not require quantification of the

endangerment (e.g., proof that a certain number of

persons will be exposed, that ‘excess deaths' will

occur, or that a water supply will be contaminated

to a specific degree). . . . [However, there must

be] some reasonable cause for concern that someone

or something may be exposed to a risk of harm by a

release or a threatened release of a hazardous

substance if remedial action is not taken.

Lincoln, 1993 WL 217429 at *13 (internal citation omitted). “Courts

have also consistently held that ‘endangerment’ means a threatened or

potential harm and does not require proof of actual harm. However, at

the very least, endangerment or a threat must be shown.” Price, 39

F.3d at 1019 (internal citation omitted).

Newark submits test results from “two separate environmental

consultants [who] have confirmed that the groundwater and soil

immediately adjacent to Dopaco’s operation[,] [specifically near the

product tanks and the building basement where Dopaco “piped in and

dispensed the toluene”, show] contaminat[ion] with toluene at levels

thousands of times higher than action standards established by the

[EPA] and the California [EPA].” (Mot 2:8-14). The first samples of

soil and groundwater were taken in 2005, and the test results show

13,000 ppm of toluene in the soil and 6,800,000 ppb of toluene in the

groundwater fifteen to twenty feet below the surface on the property

near Dopaco’s tanks and adjacent to the basement. (SUF ¶ 12). The

second samples were taken “adjacent to the [b]asement” in 2006 and the

test results “reveal[] toluene in groundwater at 7,600 and 36,000

[ppb,]” as well as the presence of MIBK in the groundwater samples.”

(Id. ¶¶ 13-14.) These results show that the levels of toluene in the

Case 2:08-cv-02623-GEB-DAD Document 90 Filed 04/02/10 Page 10 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

soil and groundwater far exceed environmental cleanup standards set by

state and federal regulatory agencies. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16.) 

Newark also relies on statements from the Regional Board

about toluene: “Regional Board considers all groundwater in the

Central Valley Region to be potential sources of municipal or domestic

water supply.” (RJN Ex. A)(emphasis added). In addition, Newark

provides evidence on the effect toluene can have on humans:

Humans exposed to intermediate to high levels of

toluene for short periods of time experience adverse

central nervous system effects ranging from

headaches to intoxication, convulsions, narcosis,

and death. 

. . . .

Exposure to 600 ppm for 8 hours resulted in the same

and more serious symptoms including euphoria,

dilated pupils, convulsions, and nausea (U.S. EPA

1994)

. . . .

Exposure to 10,000-30,000 ppm has been reported to

cause narcosis and death (U.S. Air. Force 1898) 

. . . . 

Exposures to high levels of toluene can result in

adverse effects in the developing human fetus

. . . . 

Variable growth, microcephaly, CNS dysfunction,

attentional deficits, minor craniofacial and limb

abnormalities, and developmental delay were seen in

three children exposed to toluene in utero as a

result of maternal solvent abuse before and during

pregnancy (U.S. EPA 1994).

(RJN Ex. E). Further, it is undisputed that "[t]oluene concentrations

on the [p]roperty are in excess of levels toxic to fish and

invertebrates, and to microorganisms that might otherwise break down

the contamination, causing it to attenuate over time." (SUF ¶ 17). 

Dopaco counters Newark’s evidence with expert testimony from 

Case 2:08-cv-02623-GEB-DAD Document 90 Filed 04/02/10 Page 11 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

geoenvironmental and civil engineer Patrick Lucia (“Lucia”). Lucia

declares that “Newark has not demonstrated a finding of imminent and

substantial endangerment because [Newark] [has] not evaluated whether

there is a population at risk and [it] [has] not evaluated potential

exposure pathways.” (Lucia Decl. ¶ 8). Lucia declares that a work

plan showing the “extent of impacted soil and groundwater” and

contamination characterization, a receptor survey to identify “water

supply wells, buildings, surface water bodies, and any other receptors

that could be impacted or potentially threatened by the identified

contamination,” and a “site conceptual model” concerning exposure

pathways and potential receptors should be done in accordance with the

“Tri-regional Board Staff Recommendations for Preliminary

Investigation and Evaluation of Underground Tank Sites ([Regional

Water Quality Control Board] 1990).” (Id.) Dopaco also cites expert

testimony from Newark’s expert, Keith M. O’Brien (“O’Brien”), in which

O’Brien opines that the toluene contamination on the Property “has

remained in the subsurface in the northwest corner of the facility

despite shallow groundwater flow directions generally to the

southeast.” (Opp’n 28:5-6; L’Orange Decl. 35, O’Brien Report at 18.)

Dopaco argues the evidence shows that Newark has not

satisfied RCRA’s citizen suit provision, which requires Newark to

demonstrate that the disposal of hazardous waste “‘may present an

imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment.’

42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B).” (Opp’n 25:5-19)(citing Price 39 F.3d at

1011 and Foster v. United States, 922 F.Supp. 642 (D. D.C. 1996)). 

Newark objects to Lucia’s opinion, arguing it concerns an

incorrect legal standard since contamination of groundwater by itself

Case 2:08-cv-02623-GEB-DAD Document 90 Filed 04/02/10 Page 12 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

is sufficient to constitute an “imminent and substantial endangerment”

to health or the environment. (Newark’s Obj. D.) 

Newark’s objection to Lucia’s opinion is overruled. The

objection indicates that Newark fails to appreciate “that there is a

limit to how far . . . the word may [in 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B)] can

carry a plaintiff. Meghrig tells us that an endangerment cannot be

merely possible, but must threaten[ ] to occur immediately.” Crandall

v. City and County of Denver, Colo.,--- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 430918 at

*6 (10th Cir. February 8, 2010) (internal citations and quotations

omitted). “One essential point that [Newark] appear[s] to overlook is

that although the harm may be well in the future, the endangerment

must be imminent.” Id. (referencing Meghrig, 516 U.S. at 486

(“[T]here must be a threat which is present now, although the impact

of the threat may not be felt until later.”)(emphasis in original). 

 Newark fails to establish that the contamination “may

present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the

environment . . . ” 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B). Newark was required to

show more than just that toluene contamination exists on the Property. 

The risk of endangerment from the toluene contamination “must be

imminent for there to be a claim under RCRA.” Crandall, 2010 WL

430918 at *7 (citing § 6972(a)(1)(B)). Newark “does not contend that

the contaminated groundwater is used for drinking, . . . [or] how or

whether [the] groundwater had been drawn from the site by individuals

unrelated to this litigation. Kara Holding Corp. v. Getty Petroleum

Marketing, Inc., No. 99 Civ. 0275(RWS), 2004 WL 1811427 at *11

(S.D.N.Y. 2004). “It is not enough under RCRA that in the future

someone may do something with solid waste that, absent protective

Case 2:08-cv-02623-GEB-DAD Document 90 Filed 04/02/10 Page 13 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

measures, can injure human health” or the environment. Crandall, 2010

WL 430918 at *7 (citing Meghrig, 516 U.S. at 485-86). 

“In sum, evidence that certain samples taken from the 

[Newark Property] exceeded [government] standards simply provides an

inadequate basis for a jury to conclude that federal law,

specifically, [RCRA’s citizen suit provision, § 7002(a)(1)(B),] [42

U.S.C.] § 6972(a)(1)(B), has been violated. Absent additional

evidence, the mere fact that [Newark] has produced such samples does

not support a reasonable inference that [the contamination on its

Property] presents an imminent and substantial endangerment” to health

or the environment. Cordiano v. Metacon Gun Club, Inc.,575 F.3d 199,

214 (2nd Cir. 2009). Therefore, Newark has “failed to make a

sufficient showing on an essential element of [its liability claim],”

“with respect to which [it] has the burden of proof” at trial. 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 

V. CONCLUSION

Since Newark has failed to satisfy “the imminent and

substantial endangerment” element of its RCRA claim, Newark’s motion

for partial summary judgment is DENIED.

Dated: April 1, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:08-cv-02623-GEB-DAD Document 90 Filed 04/02/10 Page 14 of 14