Cooper Crouse-Hinds, LLC v. City of Syracuse, New York

• Decision Date: 25 October 2021
• Docket Number: 5:16-cv-1201 (MAD/ATB)
• Citation: 568 F.Supp.3d 205
• Parties: COOPER CROUSE-HINDS, LLC, Cooper Industries, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE, NEW YORK, County of Onondaga, New York, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

568 F.Supp.3d 205

COOPER CROUSE-HINDS, LLC, Cooper Industries, LLC, Plaintiffs,

v.CITY OF SYRACUSE, NEW YORK, County of Onondaga, New York, Defendants.

5:16-cv-1201 (MAD/ATB)

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

Signed October 25, 2021

OF COUNSEL: BRIAN D. STARER, ESQ., VICTOR GENECIN, ESQ., SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS LLP, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 26th Floor, New York, New York 10112, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

OF COUNSEL: D. REES ALEXANDER, ESQ., DANELLE M. GAGLIARDI, ESQ., REBEKAH M. SINGH, ESQ., VINCENT ATRIANO, ESQ., SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS LLP, 41 S. High Street, Suite 2000, Columbus, Ohio 43215, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

OF COUNSEL: JOHN G. POWERS, ESQ., MARY L. D'AGOSTINO, ESQ., HANCOCK ESTABROOK, LLP, 1800 AXA Tower I, 100 Madison Street, Syracuse, New York 13202, Attorneys for Defendant City of Syracuse.

OF COUNSEL: TODD M. LONG, ESQ., CITY OF SYRACUSE LAW DEPARTMENT, 233 East Washington Street, 300 City Hall, Syracuse, New York 13202, Attorneys for Defendant City of Syracuse.

OF COUNSEL: BENJAMIN M. YAUS, ESQ., ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF LAW, John H. Mulroy Civic Center, 421 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor, Syracuse, New York 13202, Attorneys for Defendant Onondaga County.

OF COUNSEL: KEVIN C. MURPHY, ESQ., THE WLADIS LAW FIRM, PC, 6312 Fly Road, East Syracuse, New York 13057, Attorneys for Defendant Onondaga County.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

Mae A. D'Agostino, United States District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Cooper Crouse-Hinds and Cooper Industries initiated this action on October 4, 2016, against Defendants City of Syracuse and County of Onondaga. See Dkt. No. 1. Following a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA") and a contract indemnification agreement survive. See Dkt. No. 58. Now before this Court are Defendant County's and Defendant City's motions for summary judgment, Defendant County's and Defendant City's motions in limine to preclude expert reports and opinions, and Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiffs’ Corporate History

In approximately 1911, the Crouse Hinds Company constructed a manufacturing facility at the intersection of Seventh North Street and Wolf Street in Syracuse, New York. See Dkt. No. 160-2 at ¶ 7. Crouse Hinds Company was subsequently acquired by Cooper Industries, Inc., in 1981, and then merged into Plaintiff Cooper Industries, LLC ("CI") on January 1, 2005. See Dkt. Nos. 143-7; 143-11. The manufacturing facility was operated by Plaintiff CI, or its corporate predecessors, between 1912 and 2004. See Dkt. No. 151-6 at 5.

Plaintiff Cooper-Crouse-Hinds, LLC ("CCH"), was formed on August 12, 2004. See Dkt. No. 143-9. On September 1, 2004, Cooper Industries, Inc. transferred specified assets to Plaintiff CCH, including the manufacturing facility. See Dkt. No. 143-8.

Between 2004 and the present, Plaintiff CCH has operated the manufacturing facility. See Dkt. No. 161-2 at ¶ 10.

The manufacturing facility utilized foundry and machining operations to cast, machine, finish, and assemble electrical fittings, enclosures, panel boards, switches, traffic signals, and lighting. See Dkt. No. 151-6 at 5. The manufacturing facility generated, handled, transported treated, stored, or disposed of hazardous substances at various times during its operations. See Dkt. No. 161-2 at ¶ 11.

Between 1911 and 1948, Crouse Hinds acquired parcels of land located on both sides of Seventh North Street. See Dkt. No. 160-2 at ¶ 17. The parcels to the southwest are located in the City of Syracuse and are known as the South Landfill. Id. at ¶ 18. The parcels to the northeast are located in the Town of Salina, New York and are known as the North Landfill. Id. at ¶ 19. In 1965, Crouse-Hinds transferred a portion of the North Landfill that is adjacent to Ley Creek to East Plaza, Inc. Id. at ¶ 20. In 1973, another portion of the North Landfill was transferred to Defendant County pursuant to a 1972 option agreement, which the County subsequently transferred to East Plaza in 1973. Id. at ¶¶ 21-22. In 2016, the North and South Landfills were transferred from Plaintiff CI to Plaintiff CCH. Id. at ¶ 25.

B. Contamination at the Site

Both the North and the South Landfills are "impacted by SVOCs¹ , PCBs and metals at concentrations in excess of" NYSDEC Table 375-6.8(b), which sets forth the soil cleanup objectives in restricted industrial use. See Dkt. No. 144-18 at 11. The parties dispute the source of the contamination.

1. Plaintiffs’ use of PCBs

Plaintiffs admit that they disposed of waste on the landfills and that, at times, the production process used PCBs. Reports from 1961, 1963, and 1965 documented the discharge of liquid waste containing toxic contaminants including cyanides, and compounds of copper, cadmium, zinc, and aluminum in the South Landfill. See Dkt. No. 160-2 at ¶¶ 27-30. Plaintiffs also disposed of solid waste containing foundry mold sand, core sand, wood, paper, cardboard, fly ash, scrap steel drums, scrap rods and nails, steel shot, floor sweepings, speedi-dry, paint scrapings, garbage, and construction demolition materials in the South Landfill. Id. at ¶ 31.

On the North Landfill, from 1972-1980, Crouse-Hinds disposed of industrial waste including foundry sand, floor sweepings, core butts, metal scrap, metal buffing and polish residue, scrap lumber, plastic waste, paper, and cardboard. Id. at ¶ 38. From 1980 to 1983, Crouse-Hinds disposed of approximately forty cubic yards per day of industrial waste. Id. at ¶ 40. In 2012, a drum containing PCB capacitors was unearthed in the North Landfill. Id. at ¶ 49.

The parties dispute the specifics of Plaintiffs’ waste disposal practices, including the extent of PCB use and disposal. Undisputed here, and sufficient for the purposes of the pending motions, is that Plaintiffs in the 1980s used at least twenty-four PCB Transformers and ninety-nine PCB capacitors. See Dkt. No. 145-40 at 8-12. And in 1981, Plaintiff CI purchased 1,440 pounds of PCBs. Dkt. No. 160-2 at ¶ 173. A 1983 audit revealed thirty-eight PCB leaks and "Speedi-dri" was used to clean-up a spill in 1986. See id. at ¶¶ 176, 178. Plaintiffs, however, contend that at least some of the PCBs on the North and South Landfills are attributable to Defendants.

2. Defendant County's Excavation of Ley Creek

Defendant County, beginning in 1970, excavated sediment from Ley Creek to increase the creek's capacity and lessen on-going flooding. Id. at ¶ 124. For approximately, forty years, however, General Motors Corporation discharged PCBs from its Inland Fisher Guide facility into Ley Creek. See Dkt. No. 175 at ¶ 217. A 2010 letter from the County stated "[t]he evidence here is undisputed that PCBs were released (and continue to be released) into Ley Creek from [General Motors] and they are transported the length of Ley Creek to its point of discharge into Onondaga Lake. Thus, by definition, the Site is the entirety of Ley Creek[.]" See Dkt. No. 164-11 at 8.

A series of newspaper articles in the 1960s confirms the existence of pollution and odor in Ley Creek at that time. See Dkt. Nos. 164-2, 164-3, 164-4, 164-6. In 1986 and 1987, sampling of a well in an area where spoils were placed, on the Factory Avenue bank, revealed concentrations of PCBs up to 446.7 ppm. See Dkt. No. 164-7. Moreover, a 1989 report issued by the County advises citizens "to avoid Ley Creek and contact with the dredge spoils that may have been deposited along the creek banks." Dkt. No. 164-8 at 5.

The parties dispute whether excavated spoils were placed on the North Landfill.² Defendant County points to the lack of explicit documentation of their deposit on the North Landfill, as well as a contract drawing which directed the placement of spoils and did not include placement on the North Landfill. See Dkt. No. 143-2 at 25. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, point to an ambiguous drawing and aerial photographs. See Dkt. No. 145-18; Dkt. No. 150-11.

3. Defendant City's Municipal Waste

Defendant City operated a municipal landfill for the deposit of household garbage and trash at the South Landfill from 1960 to 1965. Dkt. No. 144-17 at 2. Defendant City disposed of approximately 2,000 cubic yards of municipal waste per week during this time. Id.

However, Defendant City's operations on the North Landfill, if any, are contested. Defendant City did not use the North Landfill for municipal waste, but did use the East Plaza, adjacent to the North Landfill, from 1968 to 1972. Plaintiffs allege that they have found various municipal waste on the North Landfill, and that therefore the Defendant City engaged in unauthorized waste disposal.

C. Administrative Orders with NYSDEC

In 1985, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") designated the site as a Class 2 Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site under the State Superfund Program. See Dkt. No. 26 at ¶ 47; Dkt. No. 144-15. In 2004, NYSDEC entered into a consent order with Cooper Industries, Inc. Dkt. No. 160-2 at ¶ 52. The 2004 Consent Order required Plaintiff CI to develop a remedial investigation, perform interim remedial measures, and reimburse NYSDEC for administrative costs related to the agreement. Id. at ¶ 53. Pursuant to the 2004 Consent Order, a Remedial Investigation Report was submitted to NYSDEC by Plaintiff CI in 2009. Dkt. No. 144-18. The Remedial Investigation Report summarizes the contamination at the site.

On March 31, 2011, NYSDEC issued a Record of Decision ("ROD"), which details selected remedies for the site. On August 29, 2011, Plaintiff CCH entered into a Remedial Design/Remedial Action Order on Consent and Administrative Settlement with NYSDEC. Dkt. No. 160-2 at ¶ 61. The 2011 Order sets forth the procedures for the parties to develop and implement the ROD. See Dkt. No. 144-17. The final remedial design was submitted in February 2014. See Dkt. Nos. 152-11, 152-12. On July 19, 2019, Plaintiffs completed their response actions and received a...