US v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp., 79-CV-990C.

• Decision Date: 17 March 1994
• Docket Number: No. 79-CV-990C.,79-CV-990C.
• Citation: 850 F. Supp. 993
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, the State of New York, and UDC-Love Canal, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. HOOKER CHEMICALS & PLASTICS CORPORATION; Hooker Chemicals Corporation; Occidental Petroleum Investment Corporation; the City of Niagara Falls; and the Board of Education of the City of Niagara Falls; Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

850 F. Supp. 993

UNITED STATES of America, the State of New York, and UDC-Love Canal, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. HOOKER CHEMICALS & PLASTICS CORPORATION; Hooker Chemicals Corporation; Occidental Petroleum Investment Corporation; the City of Niagara Falls; and the Board of Education of the City of Niagara Falls; Defendants.

No. 79-CV-990C.

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

March 17, 1994.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

U.S. Dept. of Justice, Environmental and Natural Resources Div. (Lewis M. Barr, Steven Novick and Jared Synder, of counsel), Washington, DC, and Patrick H. NeMoyer, U.S. Atty. (Martin J. Littlefield, of counsel), Buffalo, NY, for plaintiff U.S.

G. Oliver Koppell, Atty. Gen. of State of N.Y. (Eugene Martin-Leff, Robert E. Hernan, C. Michael Bryce and H. Johannes Galley, Oymin Chin, of counsel), New York City, for plaintiff State of N.Y.

Piper & Marbury (Thomas H. Truitt, Steven K. Yablonski and Anthony L. Young, Cynthia J. Morris and Mary F. Edgar, of counsel), Washington, DC, Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon (Louis Nizer and George Berger, of counsel), New York City, and Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine & Huber (David K. Floyd, of counsel), Buffalo, NY, for defendant Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp.

Gellman, Brydges & Schroff (Earl W. Brydges, Jr. and Richard Stanton, of counsel), Niagara Falls, NY, for defendant City of Niagara Falls.

Phelps, Gray & Hewitt (Benjamin N. Hewitt and James P. Hewitt, III, of counsel), Niagara Falls, NY, for defendant Board of Educ., City of Niagara Falls.

Hurwitz & Fine (Theodore J. Burns, of counsel), Buffalo, NY, for defendant County of Niagara.

                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I.   INTRODUCTION .....................................................    997
                     A. BACKGROUND ....................................................    997
                     B. LEGAL STANDARD OVERVIEW .......................................   1001
                II.  WASTE DISPOSAL AT LOVE CANAL .....................................   1004
                     A. HOOKER'S EARLY GROWTH .........................................   1004
                     B. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE .......................................   1004
                         1. Historical Development ....................................   1004
                         2. Soil and Drainage Conditions ..............................   1006
                     C. DISPOSAL OPERATIONS ...........................................   1006
                     D. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE WASTE MATERIAL ....................   1010
                     E. TOXICITY AND DISPOSAL METHODS FOR SPECIFIC
                        CHEMICALS .....................................................   1011
                         1. Lindane and Spent Cake ....................................   1012
                         2. Dioxin and Trichlorophenol ................................   1014
                         3. Thionyl Chloride ..........................................   1014
                         4. Dodecyl Mercaptan or DDM ..................................   1015
                         5. Incineration of Wastes ....................................   1016
                     G. CHEMICAL EXPOSURE AT THE LANDFILL .............................   1017
                III. THE TRANSFER OF THE LOVE CANAL SITE TO THE NIAGARA
                     FALLS BOARD OF EDUCATION .........................................   1019
                IV.  POST-TRANSFER EVENTS .............................................   1028
                     A. INCIDENTS WHICH WERE REPORTED TO HOOKER .......................   1029
                         1. Chemicals at School Construction Site .....................   1029
                         2. Complaints About Odors: 1955 ..............................   1030
                         3. Crater in The Playground: 1955 ............................   1030
                         4. Proposed Sale of Property: 1957 ...........................   1031
                

                         5. Problems During Road Construction: 1958 ...................   1033
                         6. Board Offers Property to the City: 1958-1959 ..............   1034
                         7. Eruption of Thionyl Chloride Container: 1961 ..............   1034
                         8. City Excavation at Wheatfield Avenue ......................   1035
                         9. Proposed Sale of the 102d Street Landfill: 1962 ...........   1035
                        10. Problems During Construction of LaSalle Highway: 1968         1036
                        11. Report of Children Playing with Chemical Residue: 1970        1037
                        12. Complaint of Odors: 1971 ..................................   1037
                        13. Complaints of Eye Irritation: 1971-72 .....................   1037
                        14. Aliphatic Acid in Hole Where Children Were Playing: 1976      1037
                     B. INCIDENTS NOT REPORTED TO HOOKER ..............................   1038
                         1. Subsidence in the School Play Area: 1956 ..................   1038
                         2. Land Collapse in School Parking Lot: 1960 .................   1038
                         3. Puddling at the School: 1961 ..............................   1038
                         4. Chemical Residue Exposure during Street Construction
                            Early 1960s ...............................................   1038
                         5. Emission at the Ball Field: 1969 ..........................   1038
                V.   GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION & OFF-SITE MIGRATION ...................   1039
                     A. INVESTIGATIONS BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES .........................   1039
                     B. OFF-SITE MIGRATION ............................................   1041
                     C. STRATIGRAPHY ..................................................   1042
                     D. ANALYSIS OF CHEMICAL MIGRATION ................................   1044
                VI.  INDUSTRY PRACTICE ................................................   1048
                     A. APPLICABILITY OF STATE-OF-PRACTICE EVIDENCE ...................   1048
                     B. THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE AND INDUSTRY PRACTICE
                        IN THE 1940s AND 1950s ........................................   1048
                         1. Scientific Knowledge and Public Awareness .................   1049
                         2. Legislative History of Pollution Control ..................   1050
                         3. Solid Waste Disposal ......................................   1052
                         4. Public Health Analysis of the Love Canal Landfill Operation   1054
                         5. State's Rebuttal to OCC Expert Testimony ..................   1056
                VII. DISCUSSION .......................................................   1058
                     A. THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL STANDARD ................................   1058
                         1. Property Law ..............................................   1058
                         2. Products Liability ........................................   1059
                     B. PRE-TRANSFER ACTIVITIES .......................................   1062
                     C. THE TRANSFER ..................................................   1063
                     D. POST-TRANSFER EVENTS ..........................................   1065
                CONCLUSION ............................................................   1067
                APPENDIX
                

DECISION AND ORDER

CURTIN, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. BACKGROUND

In 1979, plaintiffs State of New York ("State") and the United States of America ("United States") brought suit against defendant Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corporation ("Hooker," "OCC," or "the Company")¹ to recover the costs of cleaning up and insuring the safety of the Love Canal area pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) ("CERCLA"), and New York common law of public nuisance. Between 1942 and 1954, the site was used by Hooker as a landfill for toxic chemical wastes from its Niagara Falls plant. In 1953, the Company transferred the site to the City of Niagara Falls School Board ("School Board" or "Board"), and an elementary school was built in the central section the next year. A State Health Emergency was declared in 1978 when a noticeable quantity of the chemical residues began surfacing and seeping into neighboring homes.

The case was bifurcated into two phases: Phase I — to determine the liability of all parties and the principles of contribution or indemnification; and Phase II — to determine the nature and amount of the remedy. Item 741 at ¶¶ 2 & 7. Prior to trial on the Phase I issues, this court granted summary judgment against the defendant for joint and several liability under both § 107 of CERCLA and the common-law public nuisance claim. United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp., 680 F.Supp. 546 (W.D.N.Y.1988) (Supplemental Order 20); United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp., 722 F.Supp. 960 (W.D.N.Y.1989) (Supplemental Order 41).²

The State's claim for punitive damages, based upon OCC's creation of a public nuisance at Love Canal in allegedly reckless disregard of the health, safety, and property of the local residents, as well as various counterclaims and cross-claims, remained for trial, which began on October 24, 1990. Testimony was heard through June 25, 1991, and the parties made closing arguments on January 7, January 29, February 11, and February 12, 1992. The following decision pertains solely to the punitive damages claim. The balance of the issues covered by the Phase I trial will be addressed separately in future orders.³

The State claims that OCC is liable for punitive damages for Hooker's activities and omissions regarding the method of waste disposal at Love Canal, the site's transfer to the School Board in 1953, and a subsequent failure to respond adequately to the problems and potential hazards which arose once Hooker relinquished control of the Canal area. In its proposed conclusions of laws (Item 1175 at 363), the State asserts that Hooker acted with reckless or wanton disregard for the health and safety of others in each of five particulars:

1. Knowingly dumping tons of toxic chemicals in a canal used as a recreational area by children, with knowledge of actual and potential exposure of these children, and others, to harm;

2. Failing to fence a contaminated swimming and recreational area or to institute other protective measures, including warnings, in the face of knowledge of actual and potential exposure of children, and others, to harm;

3.

...