Opinion ID: 728910
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Laurel Park Only

Text: 172 . Daddio's: The district court granted summary judgment for the same reasons as in Crelan Construction. See our conclusion, supra, in Crelan. 173 . General Roofing & Sheet Metal Company (General Roofing): General Roofing disposed of [p]eastone gravel, asphalt rag felt and fiberglass roof insulation. Dr. Brown opined that this waste included benzo(a)pyrene and methyl ethyl ketone, two hazardous substances found in the Laurel Park leachate. The district court found that General Roofing was not liable and granted summary judgment, rejecting [t]he Brown assumption that a roofer necessarily disposes of [hazardous substances]. However, Brown made no such assumption, but instead considered the information provided by General Roofing in its response to discovery, determined that hazardous substance were ordinarily found in these wastes, and thereby raised a disputed material fact. 174 . Nasco, Inc.: Nasco is a service firm that slits coils of metal into narrow widths. In discovery and in a summary judgment affidavit from its president, Nasco admitted that Murtha handled its general trash, including office waste, wooden skids, paper wrappings, some plastics, tin cans, cardboard boxes, and other paper waste. Other waste generated by Nasco, such as dirty rags and steel scrap, were not disposed of in the Beacon Heights or Laurel Park facilities. Based on this information, Dr. Brown concluded that Nasco's waste included dimethyl phthalate, diethyl phthalate, trichloroethane, cadmium, and lead, all hazardous substances. The district court granted Nasco's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Brown affidavit does not constitute valid evidence. 175 . U.S. Prolam: U.S. Prolam's operations in Waterbury, Connecticut involve the coating of glass fabric with various resins and electrical lamination. According to U.S. Prolam, it disposed of inert edge trim (epoxy fiberglass), laminate, prepreg, cardboard boxes, scrap metal, and ordinary office supplies. On information and belief, two officials for Prolam stated that they maintained a separate waste disposal process for hazardous substances that was distinct from the disposal of general waste at Laurel Park. Dr. Brown determined that this waste included numerous hazardous substances that were found in Laurel Park. The district court accepted the affidavits from the Prolam officials, stated that the Brown affidavit was unavailing, and granted summary judgment to Prolam. In so doing the trial court impermissibly weighed the evidence.