Opinion ID: 200765
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 The facts related to this appeal are largely undisputed and are taken from the district court's memorandum and order. Templeton Bd. of Sewer Comm'rs v. Am. Tissue Mills, No. 96-40140(NMG) (D.Mass. Dec. 19, 2002). In March 1974, the town of Templeton entered into a Waste Management Contract with Baldwinville Products, Inc. (Baldwinville) and its owner, Erving Industries, Inc. (Erving), 2 by which Templeton agreed to build a wastewater treatment plant (the plant) and make the plant available to Erving and Baldwinville for treatment of their wastewater. The contract provided, inter alia, that: (1) Templeton shall retain legal title to all wastewater facilities, (Waste Management Contract, Section XV); (2) Templeton shall pay ... One Dollar ($1.00) per year consideration for [defendants] to operate the [plant] ( id., Section XVI B.2); (3) Templeton would apply for Federal and/or State construction grants for its wastewater treatment facility. ( Id., Section VI). Finally, it provided that (4) Erving and Baldwinville would pay the net operating costs of the plant as well as 95.5% of the net capital costs of the plant. ( Id., Section XVI B.1(a) and (c)). 3 Templeton applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a construction grant. The agency approved the grant, and the plant was built and became operational. 4 In 1991, defendant American Tissue Mills of Massachusetts, Inc. (ATM), purchased Baldwinville's operating assets. An Assignment and Assumption Agreement was executed, assigning Baldwinville's rights and liabilities under the Waste Management Contract to Northeast Waste Treatment Services, Inc. (Northeast), an ATM subsidiary. From 1991 until April 3, 2002, ATM and Northeast operated the plant. 5 In March 1995, the EPA informed Templeton that the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1284(b)(1), required Templeton to implement a user charge system whereby each user of the plant must pay a proportionate share of the cost of operating and maintaining the entire wastewater treatment system based upon that user's contribution to the total waste flow. The EPA also advised Templeton that the user charge system specified by the Waste Management Contract was inconsistent with the user charge system required by the CWA. A subsequent EPA memorandum received by Templeton in September 1995 concluded that the contract user charge system must be revised in order to comply with the EPA's regulatory scheme.