Opinion ID: 794918
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Drummed Waste

Text: 27 The 28,500 drums contained 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T stillbottom wastes, dioxin, and other hazardous and toxic substances. When the site went into receivership, the drums were leaking, corroding, and failing. By February 1989, the failed drums had been placed inside new, larger drums (overpacked). Because the drums contained corrosive materials, maintenance of the drums was an ongoing process. The EPA determined that the wastes on the site posed a threat to public health and welfare and the environment. The drummed material was considered acutely hazardous waste, and the EPA chose to dispose of the wastes by incineration. The Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPC & E) managed the incineration from 1989 until June 1993, when the EPA took over the on-site incineration of the drums. 28 Hercules argues that the district court clearly erred in finding the following: (1) the EPA and the ADPC & E decided to incinerate the 2,4-D waste drums because of the dioxin contained therein; (2) Hercules was responsible for the cross-contamination of the plant equipment causing 2,4-D waste drums to contain dioxin; and (3) Hercules was responsible for the commingling of the 2,4-D waste and the dioxin contaminated soil, causing the drums to contain dioxin. 29 Hercules first argues that it should not be held liable for the cost of incinerating the 2,4-D waste drums because those drums would have been incinerated regardless of whether they were contaminated with dioxin. The district court concluded that Hercules's argument did not withstand scrutiny and found that the EPA and Arkansas were concerned that a potential fire, explosion, or tornado could spread dioxin into the environment. Vertac XII, 364 F.Supp.2d at 953. Thus, the district court determined that [i]t was not, as Hercules argues, the dirt in the drums that drove the incineration; rather it was the dioxin in the dirt that drove the incineration of the drums. Id. 30 As the district court noted in the factual background of the case, the Vertac Rule permitted Vertac to landfill the 2,4-D waste drums only after showing that the drums contained no dioxin. This was never shown, and Phyllis Moore, Ph.D., the former director of the ADPC & E, and Randall Mathis, her successor, testified (1) that time was of the essence, (2) that further testing was expensive and time consuming, (3) that the 2,4-D drums were corroding and failing, and (4) that the drums posed an imminent risk of fire and explosion. 31 Dr. Moore was involved in the initial decision to incinerate the 2,4-D waste drums. Although she stated that the issue of dirt did not influence her decision, Dr. Moore testified that a primary concern was the presence of dioxin in the 2,4-D waste drums, regardless of whether it was transmitted to the drums by cross-contamination at the production facility or by the overpacking of the drums with contaminated soil. J.A. at 26433-34. She further testified that it was important that the method of incineration satisfy the requirements of the ADPC & E and the EPA for destruction of dioxin. Regarding the ultimate decision to incinerate, Dr. Moore testified that the state would have looked at other options if there had been no dioxin in any of the drums. J.A. at 26445. We thus reject Hercules's argument that the incineration of the 2,4-D drums was in no way attributable to dioxin. 32 Hercules next argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that the equipment at the plant contaminated 2,4-D waste with dioxin after Hercules had cleaned the production vessels in 1970. The district court found that the cleanup of the equipment was not as thorough as portrayed by Hercules, and that the plant equipment was cross-contaminated with 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, and dioxin. Vertac XII, 364 F.Supp.2d at 952. The district court rejected Hercules's theory that Vertac's chemical production flushed the dioxin out of the production vessels. 33 In its brief, Hercules recites portions of Arthur Treisback's affidavit, which was excluded as hearsay at trial and is not part of the record on appeal, and relies primarily on Treisback's deposition testimony, portions of which were read into evidence by Richard Karkkainen during his testimony. Treisback was Hercules's plant manager in charge of the 1970 plant cleanup, and Karkkainen was Vertac's director of environment and safety from 1979 to 1986. Karkkainen testified that Treisback's deposition testimony described the common practice of cleaning plant equipment and, although Karkkainen had no personal knowledge of the cleaning, that it was likely that Hercules followed the common practice. J.A. at 26458. Karkkainen further testified that there was no indication that the cleaning process was successful. J.A. at 26562. 34 The district court also heard the testimony of Reeddie Ray and Stephen Quigley. Ray worked for Hercules from 1964 to 1970 and was involved in the plant cleanup. Ray testified extensively about how the equipment was cleaned. To clean the tanks, [w]e washed them out with a water hose. . . . Only time we heated the water if there was sediment in the bottom of the tank. Regarding the process lines, Process lines were cleaned with steam. . . . We had to disassemble the lines to get water out of the tank. Ray did not recall using any solvents: The only time we used solvent is where we wanted to take the sediment and circulate and dissolve something in it, but I don't think we used solvent. I think we just used water and steam, that's all. J.A. at 27522-23. Quigley, Uniroyal's expert, testified that it was unlikely that solvents were used to clean the equipment and even if they were, it is likely that some contamination would remain in the equipment. J.A. at 28089-90. Given the evidence before the district court, we conclude that it did not err in finding that dioxin remained in the plant after Hercules's 1970 cleaning. 35 Hercules contends that the district court clearly erred in rejecting its flushing theory. According to this theory, after Vertac shifted plant production exclusively to products that do not generate dioxin, about ten production runs would have flushed out any significant amount of dioxin remaining in the plant equipment. Because Vertac stopped producing 2,4,5-T in March 1979, three years after Hercules sold the plant to Vertac, Hercules argued that there could be no detectable dioxin in the 2,4-D waste in late 1979, when Vertac began to accumulate the 2,4-D waste drums. The district court disregarded the flushing theory as, just that-a theory and noted that [a]fter nearly eight years of only 2,4-D production, dioxin and 2,4,5-T were present in plant equipment. Vertac XII, 364 F.Supp.2d at 952. 36 We conclude that the district court did not err in rejecting Hercules's flushing theory. 7 The district court stated that, because the plant equipment contained dioxin and 2,4,5-T after nearly eight years of 2,4-D production, the evidence basically disproves the theory. The finding that dioxin was present in the plant equipment is supported by the evidence. An EPA inventory of the process vessels and tanks in the central process area of the Jacksonville site showed that 140 of the 213 process vessels contained chemical material including 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, and dioxin. J.A. at 19779-80. Of the ninety-six vessels sampled, more than half were contaminated with dioxin at levels greater than 0.3 ppb. J.A. at 19780. Hercules argues that the data showing contamination of the plant equipment was untrustworthy, but Hercules has failed to show that the EPA or the district court relied on that evidence. Hercules's expert witness, Randal Maud, Ph.D., served as the project manager for Hercules at the Jacksonville site to assess the environmental consequences of the site. He testified that the unreliable data, would likely not be used because of the quality assurance problems. J.A. at 28256. 37 Finally, with regard to the drummed waste, Hercules argues that the district court erred in holding Hercules liable for the waste that was placed in the drums during overpacking. Hercules contends that either the placement of the dioxin-contaminated soil into the 2,4-D drums constituted a second disposal under CERCLA, for which it is not liable, or that the overpacking by Vertac or the EPA constituted a superseding cause, thereby relieving Hercules of liability. Hercules does not dispute, however, that it contaminated the soil with dioxin at the Jacksonville site. 38 As the district court recited in its decision, disposal under CERCLA is defined as the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that such . . . waste. . . may enter the environment. 42 U.S.C. §§ 6903(3), 9601(29). Hercules caused dioxin to enter the environment, thereby disposing of the waste. That Vertac and the EPA overpacked leaking drums in an effort to contain the further contamination of the site does not absolve Hercules of CERCLA liability. Accordingly, Hercules remains responsible for the ongoing contamination caused by the dioxin, for that contamination was not solely caused by the act of a third party.