Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Consolidated Rail

• Decision Date: 06 November 2003
• Docket Number: No. 5:98-CV-1039.,5:98-CV-1039.
• Citation: 291 F.Supp.2d 105
• Parties: NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION; the King Service, Inc.; United States Steel Company; Edwin D. King; Lawrence King; Richard B. Slote; Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; Portec, Inc.; and American Premier Underwriters, Inc.; Defendants. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., Third-party Plaintiff, v. The County of Rensselaer; and the County of Rensselaer Sewer District No. 1, Third-party Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

Page 105

291 F.Supp.2d 105

NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION; the King Service, Inc.; United States Steel Company; Edwin D. King; Lawrence King; Richard B. Slote; Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; Portec, Inc.; and American Premier Underwriters, Inc.; Defendants.

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., Third-party Plaintiff, v. The County of Rensselaer; and the County of Rensselaer Sewer District No. 1, Third-party Defendants.

No. 5:98-CV-1039.

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

November 6, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Plaintiff, Syracuse, NY, John T. Parkinson, Esq., Managing Counsel.

Swidler, Berlin, Shereff, Friedman, L.L.P., Attorneys for Plaintiff, Washington, D.C., Milissa A. Murray, Esq., Thomas R. Lotterman, Esq., of counsel.

Menter, Rudin & Trivelpiece, P.C., Attorneys for Defendant Consolidated Rail Corporation, Syracuse, NY, Thomas Joseph Fucillo, Esq., of counsel.

Whiteman & Osterman, Attorneys for Defendants King Service, Inc., Edwin D. King, Lawrence King, and Richard B. Slote, Albany, NY, Joseph D. Stinson, Esq., Scott T. Decker, Esq., of counsel.

USX Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, David L. Smiga, Esq., of counsel.

Devorsetz, Stinziano, Gilberti, Heintz & Smith, P.C., Attorneys for Defendant United States Steel Company, Syracuse, NY, Kevin C. Murphy, Esq., Timothy J. Lambrecht, Esq., of counsel.

Lafave & Associates, Attorneys for Defendant and Third-party Plaintiff Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Delmar, NY, Patrick J. Higgins, Esq., of counsel.

Bond, Schoeneck & King, Attorneys for Defendant Portec, Inc., Albany, NY, Arthur J. Siegel, Esq., Kimberlee S. Parker, Esq., of counsel.

Orrick & Herrington, Attorneys for Defendant American Premier Underwriters, Inc., New York, NY, James J. Capra, Jr, Esq., Siobhan A. Handley, Esq., of counsel.

Office of Rensselaer County Attorney, Attorney for Third-party County Defendants, Troy, NY, Stephen A. Pechenick, Esq., of counsel.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

HURD, District Judge.

ABBREVIATIONS USED THROUGHOUT:

APU — defendant American Premier Underwriters, Inc.

BTEX — benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and zylenes

BTU — British Thermal Unit

Chevron — defendant & third-party plaintiff Chevron U.S.A., Inc.

CERCLA — Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation & Liability Act of 1980

Conrail — defendant Consolidated Rail Corporation

Consent Order — Order on Consent between NiaMo and DEC

DEC — New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

GC/FID — gas chromatography/flame ionization detection

GC/MS — gas chromatography/mass spectrometry

I-787 Interstate Highway 787

King — defendants King Service, Inc., Edwin D. King, Lawrence King & Richard B. Slote

MGP — manufactured gas plant

NiaMo — plaintiff Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation

NCP — National Contingency Plan

PAHs — polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

Portec — defendant Portec, Inc.

PRP — potentially responsible person under CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)

PSA — Preliminary Site Assessment

Rensselaer defendants — third-party defendants County of Rensselaer & County of Rensselaer Sewer District No. 1

Republic Steel — Republic Steel Corporation

SVOCs — semivolatile organic compounds

TCA — trichloroethane

TCE — trichloroethylene

Water Street Site — Troy Water Street Site in Troy, New York

UCM — unresolved complex mixture found on chromatogram

USX — defendant United States Steel Company

VOCs — volatile organic compounds

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

                 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 111
                II. BACKGROUND ............................................................... 112
                    A. The NiaMo/DEC Consent Order ........................................... 112
                    B. Water Street Site and the Parties ..................................... 113
                    C. Manufactured Gas Plant Operation ...................................... 115
                    D. Theories of CERCLA Liability .......................................... 116
                       1. Conrail ............................................................ 116
                

                       2. APU ................................................................ 116
                       3. King ............................................................... 116
                       4. USX ................................................................ 116
                       5. Chevron ............................................................ 117
                       6. Portec ............................................................. 117
                       7. Rensselaer Defendants .............................................. 117
                       8. Counterclaims and Cross-claims ..................................... 117
                     E. State Law Theories of Liability ...................................... 117
                III. LEGAL STANDARDS ......................................................... 118
                     A. Motion to Dismiss .................................................... 118
                     B. Summary Judgment ..................................................... 118
                     C. Expert Testimony ..................................................... 118
                     D. CERCLA ............................................................... 119
                 IV. ANALYSIS ................................................................ 121
                     A. NiaMo's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims .............................. 121
                        1. CERCLA Contribution Protection .................................... 121
                        2. Failure to State a Claim .......................................... 122
                        3. Compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 .................................... 122
                     B. Conrail's Cross-motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ................. 123
                     C. Summary Judgment Motions on the Merits-CERCLA Claims ................. 124
                        1. Conrail ........................................................... 124
                        2. APU ............................................................... 127
                        3. King .............................................................. 128
                        4. USX ............................................................... 128
                        5. Chevron ........................................................... 130
                           a. Chevron as Current Owner of Area 3 ............................. 130
                           b. Chevron as Former Owner/Operator or Arranger/Transporter of
                                Area 4 ....................................................... 133
                           c. Rensselaer Defendants .......................................... 134
                        6. Portec ............................................................ 135
                     D. Summary Judgment Motions on the Merits-Remaining Claims .............. 137
                        1. N.Y. Navigation Law Claims ........................................ 137
                        2. Other State Law Claims ............................................ 137
                  V. CONCLUSION .............................................................. 138
                

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ("NiaMo" or "plaintiff")¹ brought this action by complaint filed on July 1, 1998, pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-75, ("CERCLA") seeking to recover costs that it has incurred and will incur in remediating hazardous substances present at the Troy Water Street Site in Troy, New York ("Water Street Site"). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 26, 1999, with leave of court. In addition to its CERCLA claims, NiaMo invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over New York Navigation and Civil Practice Law claims as well as common law indemnification, unjust enrichment, and public nuisance claims. Each defendant has answered the complaint denying the material allegations and bringing counterclaims against NiaMo and cross-claims against each other defendant for indemnification and/or contribution for any liability incurred above and beyond that defendant's proportionate share. In addition defendant Chevron U.S.A., Inc. ("Chevron") brought a third-party action against the County of Rensselaer and the County of Rensselaer Sewer District No. 1 ("Rensselaer defendants") alleging claims pursuant to CERCLA, federal common law, and state law for indemnification and/or contribution for any liability incurred above and beyond its proportionate share. The Rensselaer defendants answered denying the allegations of the third-party complaint and bringing counterclaims against Chevron for indemnification and/or contribution for any liability incurred above and beyond their proportionate share.

As is typical in CERCLA actions, this litigation was bifurcated, with Phase I proceedings related to liability to be followed by Phase II proceedings regarding damages. The parties have filed various motions as detailed below. Oral argument was heard on April 24 and 25, 2002, in Utica, New York. Decision was reserved.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The NiaMo/DEC Consent Order

In December 1992 NiaMo and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC") entered into an Order on Consent ("Consent Order") requiring NiaMo to investigate the nature and extent of hazardous substances present at twenty-one former manufactured gas plant ("MGP") sites across the state, develop plans for remediation, and implement the remediation plan as directed by DEC. The purpose of the Consent Order was to "control and/or remove residual MGP waste sources" at the former MGP sites. (Capra Aff. Ex. D at NMPC100003 ¶ 5.) The Consent Order provided that NiaMo would develop and implement, for each site, a Preliminary Site Assessment ("PSA"), that would permit DEC to determine which hazardous substances present posed a significant threat to the public health or the environment, thus necessitating remediation. The Consent Order further requires NiaMo to develop and implement a Remedial Investigation and prepare a...