Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Greenlease Holding Co.

• Decision Date: 28 March 2016
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-1498
• Citation: 173 F.Supp.3d 108
• Parties: Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Industries Railcar Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Greenlease Holding Company, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

173 F.Supp.3d 108

Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Industries Railcar Corporation, Plaintiffs,

v.Greenlease Holding Company, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-1498

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed March 28, 2016

Frederick W. Addison, III, Nolan C. Knight, Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, Dallas, TX, Leonard G. Ambrose, III, Ambrose Law Firm, Erie, PA, for Plaintiffs.

Steven F. Baicker-McKee, Marc J. Felezzola, Mark K. Dausch, Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendant.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Joy Flowers Conti, Chief United States District Judge

I. Introduction

This action was brought by plaintiffs Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Industries Railcar Corporation (together with Trinity Industries, Inc., the “Trinity plaintiffs”) seeking contribution under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. and its Pennsylvania state law counterpart, the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (“HSCA”), 35 PA. CONS. STAT. § 6020.101 et seq. The present dispute arises out of the contamination of real property located in Greenville, Pennsylvania, (the “North Plant”) caused by the use and release of products containing hazardous substances by Trinity Industries, Inc., defendant Greenlease Holding Company (“Greenlease”), and third parties who are not parties to this litigation. The contamination in large part occurred in connection with railcar manufacturing operations at the North Plant.

This court in an opinion dated August 5, 2014, granted in part summary judgment to the Trinity plaintiffs and held as a matter of law that Greenlease is a liable party under the CERCLA and the HSCA. (ECF No. 240) at 19; (ECF No. 241.) The court explained in its opinion dated August 5, 2014, that no opinion was expressed with respect to how the costs of remediation of the North Plant should be allocated among the parties. (ECF No. 240) (citing Litgo N.J., Inc. v. Comm'r of the New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 725 F.3d 369, 383 (3d Cir.2013).)

On April 20, 2015, this court commenced a bench trial with respect to the equitable allocation of response costs for the hazardous waste remediated by the Trinity plaintiffs at the North Plant. During the hearing two experts testified: Joseph B. Gormley, Jr. (“Gormley”),¹ who was called by the Trinity plaintiffs, and Steven Gerritsen (“Gerritsen”),² who was called by Greenlease. Having considered the testimony of the witnesses presented during trial and via deposition transcript, the voluminous exhibits entered as evidence, and the extensive post-trial submissions of the parties, the court in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the allocation of response costs for the hazardous waste remediated by the Trinity plaintiffs at the North Plant.

II. Findings of Fact (“FOF”)

The Parties

FOF 1. Trinity Industries Rail Car Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Trinity Industries, Inc. (ECF No. 334 at 3.) The Trinity plaintiffs are public companies and their financial information is publicly available. (T.T. 4/20/15 (ECF No. 340) at 68-9.) The Trinity plaintiffs consider themselves the leading manufacturers of railcars with manufacturing facilities across the United States and in Mexico. (Id.) In 2014, the Trinity plaintiffs reported an operating profit of $1.251 billion and a net income of $790 million. (T.T. 4/20/15 (ECF No. 340) at 69; Greenlease Ex. H.)

FOF 2. In 1910, Greenville Metal Products Company was organized for the manufacture of automotive parts. (Trinity Pls. Ex. 29 at 1.) In 1914, the corporate name of Greenville Metal Products Company was changed to Greenville Steel Car Company. (Id. at 2); (ECF No. 336 at 10.) Greenville Steel Car Company eventually changed its name to Greenlease Holding Company. (T.T. 4/23/15 (ECF No. 342) at 94.) The court will refer to Greenville Metal Products Company, Greenville Steel Car Company, and Greenlease Holding Company as “Greenlease.”

FOF 3. In 1910, Greenlease began its operations on an 11-acre parcel of property located at 60 Union Street, Greenville, Pennsylvania (the “North Plant”). (T.T. 4/24/15 (ECF No. 343) at 71; Trinity Pls. Ex. 1 ¶¶ C and 3(e).) Greenlease throughout its operation of the North Plant acquired additional parcels of property on which the North Plant was situated. (T.T. 4/20/15 (ECF No. 340) at 127; Greenlease Exs. KK-WW.) At the time of trial, the North Plant consisted of approximately 34 acres of property. (T.T. 4/24/15 (ECF No. 343) at 71.)

Shelby Steel Tube Company's Ownership of the North Plant

FOF 4. Prior to the acquisition of the North Plant by Greenlease in 1910, the Shelby Steel Tube Company (“Shelby Steel”), a manufacturer of steel tubing affiliated with United States Steel Corporation, owned and operated the North Plant on the 11-acre parcel of property later acquired by Greenlease. (T.T. 4/23/15 (ECF No. 342) at 74-75; T.T. 4/27/15 (ECF No. 344) at 16; Greenlease Exs. II-KK.) Shelby Steel operated the North Plant from at least 1898 until some point prior to Greenlease acquiring the property in 1910. (Greenlease Ex. II; T.T. 4/23/15 (ECF No. 342) at 75.)

FOF 5. The North Plant prior to its development by Shelby Steel was “a hollow with a stream running through the center axis of the property.” (T.T. 4/24/15 (ECF No. 343) at 61.) A hollow is “a stream valley, and so with the stream at the lowest point, it would be sloping towards the stream from—the stream is running north-south;....[T]he property...on both sides of the stream are sloping towards the stream.” (Id.) In other words, the easternmost and westernmost sides of the property are at a higher elevation than the stream, which was situated in the center of the property. (T.T. 4/27/15 (ECF No. 344) at 143.)

FOF 6. Part of the eastern portion of the North Plant was developed by Shelby Steel prior to Greenlease owning the site. (T.T. 4/23/15 (ECF No. 342) at 74.)

FOF 7. Shelby Steel brought historic fill to the North Plant to erect its buildings. (T.T. 4/23/15 (ECF No. 342) at 77.) Shelby Steel's buildings are depicted on the following excerpt of a Sanborn map³ dated 1898 (“1898 Sanborn map”).

(Trinity plaintiff's Ex. 3 at 048766 (emphasis added, i.e., the text boxes containing cardinal directions).) Each of the maps relied upon in this opinion, including the foregoing map, show the cardinal direction of “north” as the right side of the image, “east” as the bottom of the image, “south” as the left side of the image, and “west” as the top of the image. The cardinal directions are depicted above on the map, but will not be depicted on the other maps used throughout this opinion.

FOF 8. Historic fill is “a soil mixed with various non-native materials, including construction demolition debris, concrete, asphalt, or it could be industrial materials such as slag or ash.” (T.T. 4/24/15 (ECF No. 343) at 59.) The composition of historic fill depends upon “where it's derived from, what process it's derived from.” (Id.) Historic fill has a “wide spectrum of potential composition.” (Id.) Historic fill may consist of concrete, asphalt, slag, ash, coal, and a variety of other materials. (T.T. 4/27/15 (ECF No. 344) at 5-6.)

FOF 9. Historic fill is used extensively throughout Western Pennsylvania “to usually elevate grade on properties, to stabilize the ground for industrial developments.” (T.T. 4/24/15 (ECF No. 343) at 60.) Gerritsen explained:

[H]istoric fill is—fill is—first off, it's required through the industrial development of the region. You know, the development occurred in the areas where it was accessible to transportation, along the railroads. The railroads were built along the rivers. The rivers were always built along areas where there is potential for flooding.

There's topography with slope, and you would have to adjust the land so that you could facilitate industrial development. You find it in this area in particular along all of the three rivers here. There's layers—there's thirty, forty feet of fill derived from, for example, the steel-making industry that has just been prevalent throughout here through time.

And generally that's the concept, is that it's used to elevate the land surface, stabilize the land surface for industrial development.

(T.T. 4/24/16 (ECF No. 343) at 59-60.)

FOF 10. The Norfolk Southern Railway Company, formerly the Erie Lackawanna Railroad, runs along the western border of the North Plant. (Trinity pls. Ex. 16 at TRINGRNL070534; T.T. 4/23/15 (ECF No. 342) at 81; T.T. 4/27/15 (ECF No. 344) at 17; Greenlease Ex. NNN.)

FOF 11. A map of the North Plant during Shelby Steel's operations on the property depicts at least three large buildings situated closely together in the center of the property and a railroad track connected to the Erie Lackawanna Railroad, which broke off into two different railroad tracks that ran along either the west or east side of the three large buildings situated in the middle of the property. (Greenlease Ex. NNN; T.T. 4/23/15 (ECF No. 342) at 77.)

(Greenlease Ex. NNN (emphasis added, i.e., the text boxes and white arrows).)

FOF 12. There were no rail lines that ran through the buildings when Shelby Steel owned and operated the North Plant. (T.T. 4/27/15 (ECF No. 344) at 66.) There was one rail line that ran along a building on the western side of the property. (Id.)

FOF 13. Shelby Steel operated in the areas of the North Plant at which the “old Erie paint shop” and the “main paint shop” were later erected by Greenlease. (T.T. 4/23/15 (ECF No. 342) at 76.)

FOF 14. During Shelby Steel's ownership of the North Plant, i.e., at least beginning in 1904, a reservoir existed on the southern portion of the property. (Trinity pls. Ex. 3 at TRINGRINL048767.) Shelby Steel used the reservoir as a water source. (T.T. 4/23/15 (ECF No. 342) at 80.) The reservoir is depicted on a Sanborn map dated 1904 (“1904 Sanborn map.”)

(Trinity pls. Ex. 3 at TRINGRINL04876...