Opinion ID: 2823238
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Uncontested Testimony

Text: Mr. O’Connor first reviewed the pertinent environmental history, focusing on three reports: (1) a 1986 Complaint to DEM and DEM’s subsequent investigation; (2) a 1989 9 After Mr. O’Connor detailed his expertise in environmental engineering and the remediation of contaminated sites, Ferris offered him as an expert. Huhtamaki objected on the ground that there was a lack of foundation as to Mr. O’Connor’s qualifications to opine on a key element that Ferris would be required to prove at trial—viz., whether the hazardous substances found on Parcel A in 2005 were present at the time of the closing in 2003. The trial justice excused the jury, heard arguments from both parties, and then ruled as follows: “[A]ssuming an appropriate foundation is laid by the plaintiff in connection with opinions sought from this witness, the witness will be permitted to give those opinions.” -8- Preliminary Assessment also completed by DEM; and (3) a 1990 environmental report prepared by Szepatowski Associates, an environmental consulting firm (Szepatowski Report). The latter two reports all noted that hazardous wastes, including TCA and PCE, had been generated on the Property. Mr. O’Connor testified that, based on the factual assertions set forth in the 1986 DEM Complaint, DEM had, in Mr. O’Connor’s words, “recommended the site to the Superfund program for assessment as potentially one of the nation’s worst hazardous waste sites.”10 He added that, as a result of the 1986 DEM Complaint and the 1989 Preliminary Assessment, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hired Roy F. Weston, Inc. (Weston) to determine whether the Property should be listed as a Superfund site. In its 1993 Final Site Inspection Report (the Weston Report), Weston stated that the testing of soil samples from Parcel A revealed the presence thereon of hazardous substances, including TCA and PCE. Mr. O’Connor then testified that the EPA ultimately opted not to list the Property on its National Priorities List, which list included the country’s “worst hazardous waste sites.” It was further the testimony of Mr. O’Connor that the next environmental inspection in the Property’s history was performed in August of 1997 by Integrated Chemical & Environmental Engineering (ICEE), an environmental consulting firm.11 Mr. O’Connor testified 10 “Superfund is the name given to the environmental program established [by Congress] to address abandoned hazardous waste sites. It is also the name of the fund established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended   .” What is Superfund?, EPA.GOV, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/about.htm (last visited February 24, 2015). 11 In 1997, The Chinet Company, which merged with Huhtamaki in 2001, had expressed interest in purchasing the Property from Nyman Manufacturing, Inc., the then-owner of the site, and it hired ICEE to assess the Property. -9- that ICEE’s testing of soil and groundwater samples revealed levels of TCA in the soil that exceeded residential regulatory minimum standards.12 Mr. O’Connor testified that Nyman Manufacturing, Inc. (Nyman), the owner of the site at the time of ICEE’s 1997 investigation, was required to report the findings to DEM because ICEE had found TCA levels which exceeded residential regulatory minimum standards, in addition to other hazardous substances on the Property. Along with its reporting the findings to DEM, in October of 1997, Nyman hired Paragon Environmental Services, Inc. (Paragon) to remediate the Property. After several excavations and two rounds of soil testing, Paragon found levels of PCE in the soil samples that exceeded allowable regulatory standards. Paragon also found low concentrations of PCE in the groundwater. On December 31, 1998, Paragon issued a Closure Report, which Mr. O’Connor explained is a “regulatory required document that is submitted at the end of a remedial action.”13 This Closure Report clearly stated that Paragon “did not intend for [its] study to be an exhaustive investigation of subsurface conditions on the site.” In response to Paragon’s Closure Report, DEM issued a “no further action letter” dated October 31, 2000 (the No Further Action Letter). Mr. O’Connor testified that, while a letter of compliance “is intended to indicate that a site has been adequately addressed to the fullest extent of the regulations,” no further action letters “are meant to be specific to one incident.” Mr. O’Connor further explained that the issuance of a no further action letter simply signifies that DEM does not require a party to take further action related to a specific instance of pollution. In 12 Although ICEE also noted the presence of PCE in the groundwater, those levels of PCE did not violate the quality standards that were applicable at the time. 13 Mr. O’Connor testified that DEM did not mandate that additional excavation be conducted after Paragon’s 1997-1998 investigation in view of the fact that any further excavation would be below the “groundwater table” and the applicable regulations did not apply to “a sample taken below the groundwater table.” - 10 - fact, the No Further Action Letter pertinent to the instant case specifically states, in bold-face type, that it “is not a letter of compliance pursuant to remediation regulations.” Mr. O’Connor proceeded to testify that VHB performed the next environmental testing on Parcel A in 2005, the results of which ultimately gave rise to the present litigation. As previously explained, Ferris had sought to develop the Property for residential purposes, and VHB had been engaged to test soil and groundwater samples from Parcel A; that testing revealed that the soil and groundwater were contaminated with PCE in concentrations exceeding DEM’s minimum regulatory quality standards. VHB’s groundwater and soil testing also revealed concentrations of TCA, but at levels that did not surpass the applicable minimum standard. Mr. O’Connor testified that, as a result of VHB’s soil and groundwater testing, VHB identified three areas of Parcel A for excavation, all of which areas lay beneath approximately ten feet of uncontaminated soil.