Opinion ID: 203380
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Phase One Trial and Findings

Text: A twelve-day Phase One bench trial was held in September 2005. The third and fourth parties did not participate. On June 27, 2006, the district court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Phase One Findings and Conclusions). City of Bangor v. Citizens Commc'ns Co. (Bangor I), 437 F.Supp.2d 180 (D.Me. 2006). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). The district court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. Bangor had incurred approximately $1,000,000 in costs during the course of investigating the tar contamination in Dunnett's Cove. Bangor I, 437 F.Supp.2d at 196. The primary source of the hazardous levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Dunnett's Cove is tar. Id. at 200. [I]t is more likely than not that during most, if not all, of its operating life, the Bangor MGP discharged tar-laden wastewater into Dunnett's Cove via the Old Stone Sewer ... [which] contributed to the PAH contamination in Dunnett's Cove. Id. at 201. The operations of a nearby railyard, which occurred between 1854 and 1986, are more likely than not a source of the contamination in Dunnett's Cove, and [t]he City's use of and construction on the Railyard property since 1996 has likely contributed to the movement of PAH contamination from the Railyard property into Dunnett's Cove. Id. at 204. [O]ther discharges via the Old Stone Sewer, besides those from the Bangor MGP and the Railyard ..., contributed to the tar contamination and elevated PAHs that are now found in Dunnett's Cove. Id. at 206. However, these discharges are likely consistent with what the experts referred to as `urban background' and, as such, these discharges more likely than not account for only a relatively small portion of the tar and elevated PAHs that will inevitably be addressed in any cleanup of the site. Id. The court concluded that Citizens was liable under RCRA as a past generator of the solid waste now found in the intertidal zone and the northern portion of Dunnett's Cove. Id. at 211. As a result, the court noted that it could enter an injunction requiring Citizens to abate any imminent and substantial endangerment that exists in Dunnett's Cove, and also could award Bangor any appropriate costs of litigation, including attorneys' fees and expert witness fees. Id. The court determined that Bangor was also liable under RCRA because it contributed to the past handling and disposal of solid waste in the intertidal zone and the northern portion of Dunnett's Cove. Id. As a result, the court noted that it could enter an injunction requiring Bangor to abate any imminent and substantial endangerment and award Citizens appropriate costs of litigation. Id. The court concluded that under RCRA, Citizens and Bangor were jointly and severally liable to carry out the directives of a mandatory injunction that would abate the substantial and imminent endangerment presented by tar contamination in Dunnett's Cove. Id. at 219. The court further concluded that the PAHs in Dunnett's Cove qualify as hazardous substances under CERCLA. Id. at 211. Because Bangor owns an intertidal zone portion of the Dunnett's Cove facility and because it arranged for the disposal of tar into Dunnett's Cove, the court found it liable under CERCLA. Id. Because Citizens succeeded to the liability of the Bangor Gas Light Company and Bangor Gas Works, the court also found it liable under CERCLA. See id. at 212. Having considered all of the evidence at trial and the factors set out in In re Hemingway Transport, Inc., 993 F.2d 915, 921 n. 4 (1st Cir.1993), the court concluded, within the limitations of the Phase One inquiry, that Citizens's share of responsibility under CERCLA should be sixty percent and assigned the remaining equitable share of forty percent to Bangor. Bangor I, 437 F.Supp.2d at 212. This ratio was to apply to previously incurred as well as to future response costs. Id. at 213. The court explained that [t]here is a distinction between resolving the question of whether the Bangor MGP is a source of the contamination in question and the more general inquiry of determining all of the sources for PAH contamination in Dunnett's Cove. In the context of this first phase trial, it was never contemplated that the parties or the Court would attempt to definitively answer the latter, more general inquiry, although it was inevitable that the Court would make some findings that address this question. Despite these related findings, further discussion of the other sources is unnecessary and inappropriate. Id. at 214. The court made clear that its finding that there were two parties responsible for the contamination was limited and only [i]n the context of this first phase trial. Id. The court noted that if it were ultimately presented with each and every entity that could be responsible for some amount of tar and/or PAHs now found in the Cove, the complicated process of weeding out multiple `de minimis' polluters and then making an equitable allocation among all remaining parties would involve a complicated trial involving many months, if not years. Id. at 224. The court further explained that [a] relatively small portion of the City's share, five percent or less, reflects the City's role in contributing to the Bangor MGP discharge.... Another slightly greater portion... reflects the equitable share that might be assigned to other potentially responsible parties that the City has chosen not to pursue and for whom the City does not serve (and has not served) as a subsequent owner of the property. Finally, the bulk of the City's forty percent share reflects its role as current owner of other properties that have contributed to the contamination. Id. at 225. The court noted that although previous property owners might have played a more significant role in causing the contamination, the City has chosen not to pursue these previous owners. Even if the City had pursued these previous owners, the City would likely still be assigned some equitable share for these properties ... both because of its current role as owner and because of its subsequent use and construction on these properties. Id. at 225-26. The court also discussed the possibility of assigning an equitable share to each liable parent corporation of Citizens which was responsible for operations of the MGP prior to November 1948. See id. at 226-27. In doing so, it made clear that although the Court is now opening the door of potential third-party liability to Citizens, it is doing so on a limited basis. The Court has not assigned to Citizens any `orphan shares'.... Thus, the only third parties that might be liable to Citizens are those that are proven to share in the responsibility of the operation of the Bangor MGP some time prior to 1963. Id. Significantly, the court stated that no final judgment will be entered as [of] this time, and instructed the parties to determine the best way to move forward while the action was stayed. Id. at 227.