Emhart Industries, Inc. v. New England Container Co. (130 F. Supp. 3d 534, 2015)

United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island 2015-09-17

The Public Health and Welfare

Citations

Full opinion text

PHASE I FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.

Table of Contents

Introduction ..........................................................'.........538

I.Findings of Fact.........................................................541

A. Site Description and Operational History................................541

B. Overview of Indüstrial Practices ................................543

1. Metro Atlantic’s Main-Building Operations.......................... 543

a. Destination of Solid Waste..........'....................".......543

b. Destination of Liquid Waste....................................545

2. Metro Atlantic’s Trifluralin Operations........................____547

3. .NECC’s Drum-Reconditioning Operations............................547

á. Drum Storage.....'.................,..........•;...............548

b. Drum-Reconditioning Processes.................. (..............549

i. Open-Head Drums..................... 549

ii. Closed-Head Drums ..............................550

c. NECC’s Use of the WDA......................................551

C. Metro Atlantic’s HCP-Manufacturing Operations ........................551

1. Storage of Crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP ....................................552

2. Duration of Metro Atlantic’s HCP-Manufacturing Operations..........555

3. Waste Streams of HCP-Manufacturing Process.......................557

a. Destination of Liquid Waste................................ 558

b. Destination of Solid Waste...............................563

i. Lay-Witness Testimony.........................;_______563

ii. Site Data..............................................565

■ A. HCX ......'...........................,.............566

1. Formation of HCX..............................566

2. Location of HCX................................567

3. Colocation of HCX: Number of Nuchar Treatments............. 568

4.Colocation with Two Nuchar Treatments...........573

B. 2,3, 7, 8-TCDD in the WDA.........................576

4. Soil in Vicinity of HOP Building Footprint...........................582

a. ' Leaks and Spills..................'..............'..............582

b. Presence of Other Substances..................................583

e. NECC as the Source of 2,3, 7, 8-TCDD in This Area.............584

i. Dioxin-Congener Profile.................................585

ii. DOD Drums 1............. 589

d. Metro Atlantic is Responsible for 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD in the Area . of the HOP Plant'...................................!/.../. .594

5. Radiometric Dating of Pond Sediments..............................595

D. Fate & Transport.............................................. 597

E. Incurrence of Response Costs.........................................600

II. Conclusions of Law ........................................................602

A. Emhart is Liable as a Past Operator under § 9607(a).....................602

B. Emhart Has Not Proven that the Harm at the Site is Divisible.............603

C.- The DOD’s Rule 52(c) Motion..........................................609

III. Conclusion......... 611

Introduction

This environmental case arises from pollution discovered within the Centredale Manor Restoration Project Superfund Site (“Site”) located in North Providence, Rhode Island. Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, Emhart Industries, Inc. (“Em-hart”), initiated this case in May 2006, when it asserted cost recovery and contribution claims under §§ 107(a) and 113(f) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), see 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a), 9613(f), against New England Container Co. (“NECC”) and its insurers related to the pollution at the Site. (C.A. No. 06-218, ECF No. I.) In January 2011, Emhart filed suit against the United States Department of the Air Force, the United States Department of the Navy, the United States Department of Defense, the secretaries of each of these departments, and the United States (collectively, “the DOD”), asserting CERCLA claims similar to those asserted in its case against NECC. (Emhart’s Compl. ¶¶ 41-54, ECF No. 1.)

Since that time, the parties have filed a bevy of claims against one another: the DOD filed a CERCLA contribution counterclaim against Emhart (Counterclaim ¶¶ 42-44, ECF No. 32); the United States, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (“the EPA” and, collectively with the DOD, “the Government”), filed a CERCLA cost recovery counterclaim against Emhart (Counterclaim ¶¶ 45-50, ECF No. 32); the Government filed a third-party complaint against Black & Decker, Inc. (“Black & Decker”), Emhart’s successor, asserting "the same claims as those asserted in its counterclaim against Emhart (ECF No. 34); Black & Decker filed a third-party counterclaim against the DOD, asserting the same claims that are asserted by Emhart in its claims against the DOD (ECF No. 49); the Government filed a crossclaim against NECC, asserting a CERCLA cost recovery claim and a CERCLA contribution claim on behalf of the DOD (ECF No. 67); NECC asserted CERCLA cost recovery and contribution crossclaims against the DOD (ECF No. 93); and the Government filed a claim against Emhart arising from its failure to comply -with a CERCLA cleanup order (Gov’t’s 2d Am. Answer & Counterclaims ¶¶ 53-60, ECF No. 357; Gov’t’s 2d Am.3d Party Compl. ¶¶ 65-72, ECF No. 358).

This Court set a phased-trial schedule for this case (8th Rev. Case Mgmt. Order 2, ECF No. 295), which was modified multiple times to accommodate the parties’ discovery needs. The first phase was slated to address the liability of Emhart and NECC, including divisibility and the proper allocation of responsibility between Emhart and NECC in the event that both were found jointly and severally liable under CERCLA. (Id.) However, shortly before trial on the first phase commenced, NECC, which had “limited financial ability to pay for response costs incurred and to be incurred at the Site” (Consent Decree 2, ECF No. 375) settled with the Government for $8,750,000-, the remainder of NECC’s insurance - coverage (id. at 2, 5), and a consent decree reflecting this settlement was approved and entered by this Court during trial. (Id.) Therefore, the focus of the first phase of this case was narrowed to the questions of whether Em-hart is liable under CERCLA and, if so, whether the harm is divisible. In addition, because of the “somewhat unique” position that the DOD occupied in this case based on the connection between its alleged conduct and Emhart’s defenses (8th Rev. Case Mgmt. Order 2, ECF No. 295), this Court ordered the following:

All evidence pertaining to the [DOD’s] liability for contamination of the Site will be presented during the first phase (the liability phase) of the trial; However, during this phase, the evidence will be used solely to determine the liability of Emhart and NECC and whether this liability (if proven) is divisible among the two parties. The Court will not rule on the liability of the [DOD], or its amount in contribution, if any, until the third phase-when it considers the contribution of the Third-Party Defendants,

(Id. at 3.)

As is relevant to the first phase of this case, the Government asserts a CERCLA cost recovery, claim (“Count.Two.”) and, on behalf of the DOD, a CERCLA contribution claim (“Count One”) against Emhart. (See Gov’t’s 2d Am. Answer & Counterclaims ¶¶ 42-52, ECF No. 357; Gov’t’s 2d Am.3d Party Compl. ¶¶ 53-64, ECF No. 358.) Emhart principally denies any liability under CERCLA. (See Emhart’s Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law (“.Emhart’s Post-trial Br.”) 150-62, ECF No. 378.) As.a fallback, Emhart claims that, even if it. is liable under § 9607(a), it is not jointly and severally liable for all response costs because the environmental harm for which it may be responsible is divisible from.that caused by NECC. (See id. at 162-77, ECF No. 378.) Finally, Emhart continues to assert a CERCLA contribution claim (“Count Two”) and a CERCLA cost recovery claim (“Count One”) (and an accompanying declaratory-judgment claim relating to those claims) against the DOD, (See Emhart’s 2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 42-55, 65-68, ECF No. 69; Black & Decker’s Answer & 1st Am. Counterclaim ¶¶ 30-50, ECF No.. 367.)

The Court presided over a twenty-day bench trial beginning on May 18, 2015. After trial, the parties submitted, post-trial briefs. (ECF Nos. 378-79.) After considering the evidence presented at trial and the pre- and post-trial memoranda submitted by the parties, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court’s findings of fact have been grouped into the following categories: a brief background of the Site and the relevant operational history of the entities that occupied it; a general overview of the industrial practices -of NECC and Metro Atlantic, Inc. (“Metro Atlantic”); an in-depth discussion of Metro Atlantic’s manufacture of hexachlorophene (“HCP”); findings regarding principles of fate and transport of contaminants and their application to the Site; and a brief discussion of the costs incurred by the EPA, as well as future costs, for the remediation of the contamination on the Site. In broad strokes, this Court finds that Metro Atlantic released a hazardous substance — namely, 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (“2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD”) — to the Site through-its manufacture of HCP, that the 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD was transported to downstream areas, and that the EPA incurred response costs as a result of the release of dioxin. From these findings of fact, this Court ultimately concludes that Emhart is jointly and severally liable under § 107(a) of CERCLA and that Emhart has not-proved by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a reasonable basis in this evidentiary record to apportion the harm. This Court also finds that Emhart’s claims against the DOD fail because Emhart did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the DOD drums purchased by NECC contained a hazardous substance. The tale follows.

I. Findings of Fact

A. Site Description and Operational History

The Site, which is depicted in Appendix A, spans a three-mile stretch of the Woonasquatucket River, and encompasses an area labeled the Source Area (“peninsula”), Allendale Pond, the Oxbow Area, Lyman Mill Pond, Mantón Pond, and Dyerville Pond. (Remedial Investigation Report (“RIR”) 1-2, U.S. Ex. 43.) The Site also contains residential areas along portions of the Woonasquatucket River and on either side of the Lyman Mill Dam. (Trial Tr., vol. I, 70:19-71:6, May 18, 2015, ECF No. 383.) The descriptively named Source Area, depicted in Appendix B, is a nine-acre peninsula in the northern portion of the Site that the EPA has identified as the source of the hazardous substances with which the Site is contaminated. (Id. at 71:15-71:20, 72:4-72:10, 92:16-92:19.) The peninsula is bounded to the north by Smith Street, to the south by Allendale Pond, to the west by the Woonasquatucket River, and to the east by the “tailraee,” a remnant of a narrow body of water used for water power by the mills that used to occupy the peninsula. (Id. ■ at 72:13-73:1; RIR 1-2, U.S. Ex. 43.) There are currently two elderly housing facilities located on the peninsula: Brook Village and Centredale Manor. (Trial Tr., vol. I, 73:13-73:21, ECF No. 383.)

In 1996, dioxin was discovered in fish collected from the Woonasquatucket River. (Id. at 74:14-74:17; RIR 1-4, U.S. Ex. 43.) The' EPA investigated the Site and, in 2000, listed it on the National Priorities List (“NPL”) of Superfund sites. (Trial Tr., vol. I, 74:23-75:1, ECF No. 383; RIR 1-4, U.S. Ex. 43.)- Ultimately, the EPA determined that the Site was polluted by a variety of contaminants, including dioxins, volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”), poly-chlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”), semi-volatile organic compounds (“SVOCs”), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (“PAHs”), and various metals. (Trial Tr., vol. I, 83:24-84:9, 85:9-85:12, 95:16-95:19, ECF No. 383; RIR 7-2 to 7-3, U.S. Ex. 43.) The EPA considers dioxins — and 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD, in particular — to be one of the primary contaminants of concern at the Site. (Trial Tr., vol. I, 96:5-96:12, 105:12-105:20, ECF No. 383; RIR 1-6, 4-1, U.S. Ex. 43.) Although the EPA identified several entities as potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) ■ (Record of Decision (“ROD”), Part 2, at 7-9, U.S. Ex. 68), its investigation zeroed in on two primary culprits: Metro Atlantic and NECC (see RIR 7-1, U.S. Ex. 43).

Following a period dating back to the 1800s in which the peninsula was occupied by other entities, including textile mills, Metro Atlantic began operating on the peninsula in approximately 1943. (Id.. at 1-3.) Metro Atlantic conducted its operations on the peninsula in several different buildings. (Trial Tr. vol. I, 126:19-126:25, ECF No. 383; U.S. Exs. 234-38.)' Metro Atlantic’s main building was in the northeast corner of the peninsula. (See U.S. Exs. 234-38; Emhart Ex. 15; Trial Tr., vol. XIV, 8:20-8:24, 9:13-9:23, June 10, 2015, ECF No. 396.) In addition to this facility, Metro Atlantic also conducted two operations for brief periods of time on the western side of the peninsula, along the bank of the Woonasquatucket River, southwest of its main building. (See U.S. Exs. 237-38, 240; Trial Tr., vol. I, 127:18-127:20, 140:25-141:14, 143:24-144:8, ECF No. 383,) For “about a year” in approximately 1962 or 1963, Metro Atlantic manufactured trifluralin, a pesticide, in an approximately thirty-foot high, two-story temporary structure — referred to as the “Texas Tower” by employees who worked there — that it constructed in that area. (Tr. of Deposition of Daniel Paterson (“Paterson Dep. Tr.”) 24:21; see also id. at 23:4-23:11, 24:18-24:22, 25:19-25:25; Trial Tr., vol. I, 140:25-141:14, ECF No. 383; Trial Tr., vol. VII, 48:7-48:13, June 1, 2015, ECF No. 389; U.S. Ex. 237; Emhart Exs. 13, 329.) Later, in the mid-1960s, Metro Atlantic manufactured HCP in a separate building (“HCP building”) located in the same area as Metro Atlantic’s previous trifluralin operation.

NECC began to operate its drum-reconditioning business on the peninsula in approximately 1952. (See RIR Table 1-1,. U.S. Ex. 43.) NECC’s buildings were south of Metro Atlantic’s main building on the eastern side of the peninsula. (See Trial Tr., vol. I, 126:25-127:1, ECF No. 383; U.S. Ex. 238.) The area in which Metro Atlantic manufactured trifluralin and HCP was situated to the west of the NECC buildings. (See Trial Tr., vol. I, 126:25-127:1, ECF No. 383; U.S. Ex. 238.) Like Metro Atlantic’s buildings, the NECC buildings also underwent change throughout NECC’s tenure on the peninsula.

An access road ran in a north-south direction on the peninsula, past NECC’s buildings and Metro Atlantic’s mam building and HCP building (during the. time period in which that building existed). (See Trial Tr., vol. 1,124:1-124:9, ECF No. 383; Trial Tr., vol. VII, .110:4-110:8, ECF No. 389; U.S. Ex, 238.) The road provided unimpeded access from Smith Street at the northern portion of the peninsula to a waste disposal area (“the WDA,”) in the southern portion of the peninsula. (See Trial Tr., vol. I, 124:1-124:9, ECF No. 383.) During Metro Atlantic’s and NECC’s time on the peninsula, the WDA increased in size, and the amount of material discarded in the WDA also, increased through the years. (See id. at 123:18-123:21, 133:23-134:1, 136:10-136:25, 139:7-139:19, 143:13-143:23; 149:19-149:21; Trial Tr., vol. VII, 34:9, 34:12-34:14, 38:13-38:16, 39:5-39:11, 42:2-42:5, ÉCF No. 389; U.S. Exs. 234-38, 240, 242; Emhart Exs. 325A, 326A, 327A.)

In 1972, a large fire damaged all of the buildings on the peninsula and, as of March 1974, all of them had been demolished. (See N. Providence Fire Dept. Fire Reports 36-37, U.S. Ex. 16; Trial Tr., vol. III, 141:20-142:8, May 20, 2015, ECF No. 385;' Trial Tr., vol. VII, 97:1-97:12, ECF No. 389; Emhart Ex. 24.)

B. Overview of Industrial Practices

1. Metro Atlantic’s Main-Building Operations

In its main building, Metro Atlantic manufactured several textile chemicals, including water repellants, resins, cotton softeners, powdered soaps, reserve salt (an anti-bleeding agent for. textile dyes or a metal stripper), and sulfonated tallow for wool. (See Trial Tr., vol. VII,. 203:10-203:17, ECF No. 389; Tr. of Deposition of Lawrence R. Bello (“Bello Dep. Tr.”) 9:6-9:13.) In addition, Metro Atlantic received and relabeled packages of dye. (See Tr. of May 13, 2013 Deposition of Joseph Buonanno, Jr. (“J. Buonanno. 5/13/13 Dep. Tr.”) 106:19-107:17.) The raw materials used in connection with the manufacture of these products included alcohols, formaldehyde, urea, sulfur trioxide, metal salts, fixatives, melamine, ■ detergents, silicone, nitrobenzene, boric acid, , sulfuric acid, citric acid, hydrochloric acid, .tallow, methanol, and .isopropyl. (See Trial Tr., vol. VII, 203:18-203:22, ECF No. 389; Bello Dep. Tr. 34:16-35:19; Tr. of Jan. 17, 2003 Deposition of Joseph Buonanno, Jr. 17:7-17:21, 84:10-85:20.)

Because the Court finds that Emhart is liable under CERCLA as a result of releases. that occurred in connection with Metro Atlantic’s manufacture of HCP (which is detailed ’ below), it need not decide whether Metro Atlantic is liable under CERCLA for a release of a hazardous substance in connection with its main-building operations. . However, findings regarding two aspects of Metro Atlantic’s main-building operations — the destinations ,of solid and liquid waste — bear on critical factual disputes in this case. Therefore, these two aspects are addressed below.

a. Destination of Solid Waste

The evidence demonstrates that, through the years that it operated on the peninsula, Metro Atlantic deposited some of its solid waste from its main-building operations in the WDA in the southern portion of the peninsula. Numerous witnesses recounted observing varying types of Metro Atlantic refuse, including laboratory jars and .othér glassware' (some of which contained residues), galvanized steel 20-gallon or 25-gallon DuPont Chemical cans (some with shipping labels to Metro Atlantic), dyes, barrels, and drums. (Trial Tr., vol. I, 220:13-220:18, 220:21-221:23, ECF No. 383; Trial Tr., vol, II, 10:6-10:20, 11:2-11:15, 11:21-12:7, 12:16-13:2; 38:9-38:16, 42:17-43:4, 48:8-48:10, May 19, 2015, ECF No. 384; Trial Tr., vol. III, 132:6-132:17, ECF No. 385; U.S. Exs. 183-84, 186; Tr. of June 12, 2013 Deposition of Raymond Nadeau (“R. Nadeau 6/12/13 Dep. Tr.”)'78:11-78:14; Tr. of May 16, 2013 Deposition of Vincent Buonanno (“V. Buonanno 5/16/13 Dep. Tr.”) 382:13— 382:16, 399:19-400:22, 401:3-401:13, 402:8-402:16; see also U.S. Ex. 34 (minutes from a 1964 meeting of the North Providence Town Council in which a representative of Metro Atlantic acknowledged “years of dumping”).) Don Asselin, who “used to scavenge through the dumpsite looking for lumber to build treehouses” as a child in the early 1960s, recalled seeing Metro Atlantic employees back trucks emblazoned with Metro Atlantic’s name up to the WDA in order to allow them to conveniently dump waste. (Trial Tr., vol. II, 28:18, 32:18-33:5; 36:13-36:14, 40:14-40:17, 47:25-48:5, 50:9-50:17, ECF No. 384.) Similarly, Raymond Nadeau, who worked for NECC from the mid-1950s to 1969, referred to the WDA as “Metro’s dump” and recalled seeing Metro Atlantic employees drive Metro Atlantic trucks down to the WDA to dump waste. (R. Nadeau 6/12/13 Dep. Tr. 78:5-78:7, 78:15-78:25; Tr. of 'Raymond Nadeau’s Trial Testimony in Home Insurance Case (“K. Nadeau Home Ins. Trial Tr.”) 79:24-80:4; Tr. of Sept. 10, 2008 Deposition of Raymond Nadeau (“R. Nadeau 9/10/08 Dep. Tr.”) 7:4-7:5.) Nadeau testified that Metro Atlantic used the WDA throughout the period of his employment with NECC. (R. Nadeau Home Ins. Trial Tr. 79:16-80:8.) •

However, the WDA was not always the exclusive destination for the solid waste generated in Metro Atlantic’s main-building operations. Several former Metro Atlantic employees testified that, during the mid-1960s, there was a dumpster adjacent to the southwest corner of Metro Atlantic’s main building in which the waste generated in- that building was deposited. (See Trial Tr., vol. XIV, 4:11-4:13, 17:24-18:23, 21:2 — 21:17, 24:9-24:13, 33:20-34:12, ECF No. 396; Emhart Ex. 351A; Tr. of John Turcone’s Trial Testimony in Home Insurance Case (“Turcone Home Ins. Trial Tr.”) 47:19-47:22, 49:11-49:20; Tr. of Sept. 12, 2013 Deposition of John Turcone (“Turcone 9/12/13 Dep. Tr.”) 27:18-27:23; Tr. of Dec. 16, 2002 Deposition of John Turcone (“Turcone 12/16/02 Dep. Tr.”) 11:21-12:9, 44:6-45:5, 57:23-58:9; J. Buonanno 5/13/13 Dep. Tr. 118:19-118:25; see also Locke Slide 14, Emhart Ex. 342.) The dumpster was described as a “Truk-Away” or roll-off container. (J. Buonanno 5/13/13 Dep. Tr. 119:12-119:21; see Tr. of Oct. 29, 2008 Deposition of Johri Turcone (“Turcone 10/29/08 Dep. Tr.”) 18:15-18:25; Tr. of Nov. 30, 1999 Deposition of John Turcone (“Turcone 11/30/99 Dep. Tr.”) 15:2-15:15.) Consistent with this testimony, Robert D. Mutch, an expert in aerial-photographic interpretation, identified a possible roll-off dumpster 'adjacent to Metro Atlantic’s main building in an April 1965 aerial photograph. (Trial Tr., vol. VII, 12:6, 24:12-24:18, 64:2-64:11, ECF No. 389; Emhart Ex. 336B.)

Therefore, this Court finds that, during the time that it operated on the peninsula, Metro Atlantic disposed of the solid waste generated in its main-building operations in both dumpsters and the WDA.

b. Destination of Liquid Waste

This Court finds that, at ‘some point between 1956 and 1964, Metro Atlantic’s main building was connected to North Providence’s municipal sewer system and that at least some of the chemical'waste generated in that building was discharged into this sewer system. ■An article--from the Providence Journal dated November 22, 1956 indicated that, intermittingly, Metro Atlantic’s wastewaters were dumped into the tailrace. (U.S. Ex. 84; see also Trial Tr., vol. X, 89:10-89:12, June 4, 2015, ECF No. 392.) North Providence Town Council meeting minutes from the 1950s and 1960s indicate that Metro Atlantic’s main building connécted to the town sewer system at some point between 1956 and 1964. Minutes from October 1, 1956 stated that Metro Atlantic had, by that date, tied its domestic sewage system in with the town’s. (Emhart Ex. 275.) ' Minutes from November 19, 1956 related that State of Rhode Island health officials had advised Metro Atlantic to cease dumping chemicals into the tailrace under threat of civil or criminal action. (Emhart Ex. 276.) According to the minutes from June 22, 1964, a Metro Atlantic representative told members of the North Providence Town Council that Metro Atlantic’s chemical waste went to the sewer system and not to the tailrace.' -(Emhart Ex. 277.) At this same meeting, the representative also explained that, after its chemical waste was analyzed, Metro Atlantic was given permission to discharge its chemical waste into the town’s sewer system. (Id.) The November 22,1956 Providence Journal artide quoted Carléton Maine, who worked for the Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control with the Rhode Island Department of Health (“RIDOH”) from the mid- to late-1950s through the mid-1970s (see - Tr. of April 29, 2009 Deposition of Carleton Maine (“Maine 4/29/09 Dep. Tr.”) 6:1-6:11; Tr. of May 22,2013 Deposition of Carleton Maine (“Maine 5/22/13 Dep. Tr.”) 36:3-36:8), as stating that the RIDOH Division of Sanitary Engineering “[had] advised Metro-Atlantic Co. to discharge wash waters -into the town sewerage system.” (U.S. Ex. 84; see also Trial Tr., vol. X, 89:10-89:12, ECF No. 392.) Meeting minutes from July 6,1964 explained that a committee that was formed to tour Metro Atlantic’s facilities concluded after its view of the premises that “nothing ... [was] going into the water, except water off of drain pipes[,]- arid [that] all chemical waste was deposited through the sewer system.” (Emhart Ex. 278.)

Similarly, Maine testified that Metro Atlantic was connected to the North Providence' sanitary-sewer system in 1956. (Maine 4/29/09 Dep. Tr. 18:2-18:7, 34:19-34:25, 35:5-36:12; Maine 5/22/13 Dep. Tr. 28:2-28:5, 58:17-58:22, 59:12-59:13.) Maine explained that a representative of Metro Atlantic showed him a concrete pit in the basement of Metro Atlantic’s main building where all the drainage from Metro Atlantic’s main-building operations drained before being purhped to the sewer. (Maine 5/22/13 Dep. Tr. 28:10-30:9, 31:12-32:17, 58:17-58:22, 59:12-59:13.) Maine did not observe any pipes leading to the tailrace at this time. (Id. at 30:18-30:19.) Maine testified that he “found no waste going to the [tailrace] from [Metro Atlantic] ____Everything was tied into the sewer system.” (Maine 4/29/09 Dep. Tr. 35:16-35:18.)

Based on his review of the town council-meeting minutes, the transcripts of Maine’s depositions, and various plans depicting sewer lines in the vicinity of the peninsula, as well as his inspections, of sewer lines in the 1970s, L. Robert Smith- — an expert in sewer systems and waste disposal practices — concluded that Metro Atlantic’s main building was connected to the sanitary-sewer system for all of its chemical and sanitary waste, beginning sometime between 1942 and 1956. (Trial Tr., vol. X, 3:11, 11:23-12:5, 12:17-15:2, 26:23-27:3, 32:9-32:13, 33:10-33:19, 45:6-45:9, 47:18-47:24, ECF No. 392.) One of the plans reviewed by Smith depicted several wyes connected to the. main sewer line on Smith Street. (Emhart Ex. 343B; Trial Tr., vol. X, 19:22-20:4, ECF No. 392.) A notation on this plan states: “Engineer see owner about drains.” (Em-hart Ex. 343B; Trial Tr., vol. X, 20:15-21:16, ECF No. 392.) The orientation- and location of the wyes on this plan, along with Maine’s testimony about the sewer pit, led Smith to conclude that Metro Atlantic’s sewer connection ran from the sewer pit, through the main building and over the tailrace, and connected to the main sewer line via one of the wyes depicted in the plan. (Trial Tr., vol. X, 47:18-47:24, 48:9-48:22, 53:18-53:23, 134:15-135:1, 135:13-135:17,136:5-136:16, ECF No. 392.)

Smith’s opinions were also informed by his experience as a part-time sewer inspector for North Providence in the early 1970s. (Id. at 6:12-6:19, 6:25-7:3, 8:8-8:10.) On one occasion during his tenure, the sewer line on Smith Street in the vicinity of the peninsula was inspected and found not to need repair. (Id. at 14:21— 15:2, 21:17421:19, 22:4-22:24.) On another occasion, Smith descended a manhole in an area away.' from the peninsula- .and observed a sewer line extending towards the direction of the- tailrace and the area where Metro Atlantic’s main building once stood, although he acknowledged that he could not. say for certain whether the line extended onto the peninsula. (Id. at 13:16-13:18, 14:10-14:19, 24:14-25:21, 60:17-61:7,132:6433:20; Emhart Ex. 344.)

Indeed, Ray K. Forrester — a chemical engineer .and the Government’s expert in the fields of chemical process engineering, chemical manufacturing waste handling practices, and environmental forensics-agreed that, at some point between 1956 and 1964, Metro Atlantic began discharging its chemical waste from its main-building operations into North Providence’s municipal sewer system. (Trial Tr., vol. II, 97:9-97:10, 97:17, 107:18-108:11, ECF No. 384; Trial Tr., vol. III, 147:6-147:13, ECF No. 385; Trial Tr., vol. IV, 112:20-113:9, May 21, 2015, ECF No. 386.)

Although this Court finds that Metro Atlánticas main building was connected to the municipal sewer, system, .the evidence also suggests that some of the liquid chemical waste that was generated.in this building was nonetheless discharged into the tailrace during the time when the building was connected to the sewer system. Joseph Nadeau, who worked as a laborer for Metro Atlantic in the 1964-65 timeframe; recalled washing residual waste from filter presses, leaky drums, and leaky pipes into a drain. (Trial Tr,, vol. XIV, 3:11, 4:11-4:13, 4:17-4:20, 17:10-17:11, 17:15-17:19, 37:25-38:12, 40:20-41:3, .43:54:3:13, 43:18v 43:22, 44:11-45:4, 55:21-56:2, ECF No. 396.) Nadeau saw the drain discharging liquid wastes into the tailrace. (Id. at 38:13-39:3, 41:2-41:10, 45:5-45:8.) Although Emhart characterizes Nadeau’s testimony in this regard as “based more on assumptions and speculation than actual knowledge” (Emhart’s Post-trial Br. 88, ECF No. 378), Nadeau testified that he personally observed materials discharging from Metro Atlantic’s main building into the tailrace (Trial Tr., vol, XIV, 38:13-39:3, ECF No. 396).

2. Metro Atlantic’s Trifluralin Operations

For approximately one year in 1962 or 1963, Metro Atlantic manufactured trifluralin on the western side of the peninsula in a small temporary structure known as the Texas Tower. (See Paterson Dep. Tr. 12:13-12:21, 23:4-23:11, 24:18-24:22, 25:19-26:11; Tr. of Feb. 10, 2003 Deposition of Thomas F. Cleary (“Cleary Dep. Tr,”) 60:6-61:19; Turcone 9/12/13 Dep. Tr. 26:19-27:11, 56:3-56:7, 60:16-60:22; Turcone 10/29/08 Dep. Tr. 24:21-26:3, 78:25-79:19; Turcone 12/16/02 Dep. Tr. 32:6-32:12, 47:19^17:20; see also Trial Tr., vol. VII, 48:7-48:13, ECF No. 389; Emhart Exs. 13, 329.) The Texas Tower had no drains or troughs; liquid waste was washed out of the building and onto the ground outside. (See Turcone 9/12/13 Dep. Tr. 110:1-110:14; Turcone 12/16/02 Dep. Tr. 32:16-32:21.) Additionally, a pipe ran approximately one foot off the ground from the Texas Tower to the Woonasquatucket River and discharged an unknown clear liquid. (See Turcone 9/12/13 Dep.'Tr. 97:13-97:15; Turcone 10/29/08 Dep. Tr. 28:17-29:8, 97:11-97:23.) The liquid corroded" the discharge pipe, which needed to be replaced frequently as a result. (See Turcone 12/16/02 Dep. Tr. 19:14-20:8.) •

3. NECC’s Drum-Reconditioning Operations

NECC reconditioned 55-gallon drums on the peninsula from approximately the late 1940s or early 1950s until the early 1970s. (See RIR Table 1-1, U.S. Ex. 43; Trial Tr., vol. VII, 195:23-196:9, ECF No. 389.) During its time on the peninsula, NECC received drums from a litany of entities, including Metro Atlantic, the DOD, and a group of unknown drum “peddlers.” (Tr. of Feb. 13, 2003 Deposition of Joseph Cifelli (“Cifelli 2/13/03 Dep.' Tr.”) 8:5; see Tr. of March 28, 2003 Deposition of Vincent J. Buonanno (“V., Buonanno 3/28/03 Dep. Tr.”) 123:23-135:20; R. Nadeau 6/12/13 Dep. Tr. 22:21-23:7, 72:14-72:25; Tr. of May 21, 2013 Deposition of Joseph Cifelli (“Cifelli 5/21/13 Dep. Tr.”) 28:12-28:14;. Trial Tr., vol. VIII, 53:25-54:4, June 2,2015, ECF No. 390; Trial Tr., vol. IX, 90:10-90:13, 90:20-90:25, 164:21-165:3,. June 3, 2015; ECF No. 391; Locke Slide 68, Emhart Ex. 342.) Many of the drums that NECC received contained residues of the substances that were once contained in the drums. (See Tr. of Oct. 1, 2002 Deposition of Raymond Nádeau (“R. Nadeau 10/1/02 Dep. Tr.”) 12:14-12:16; Tr. of Sept. 10, 2008 Deposition of Raymond Nadeau (“R. Nadeau 9/10/08 Dep. Tr.”) 29:21-29:24, 31:25-32:9; Cifelli 2/13/03 Dep. Tr. 41:23-42:11; Turcone 11/30/99 Dep. Tr. 27:5-27:9.) Some of this residual material would leak onto the beds of the NECC trucks, and the drivers would hose these materials onto the ground on the peninsula. (Tr. of Jan. 7, 2003 Deposition of John Priest (“Priest Dep. Tr.”) 24:9— 25:5.)

a. Drum Storage

NECC stacked drums in several locations on the peninsula, including to the south of the NECC buildings and to the east and west of the access road. (Trial Tr., vol. I, 130:1-130:6, 133:18-133:19, 136:6-136:7, 157:25-159:2, ECF No. 383; Trial Tr., vol. VII, 33:19-33:21, 38:11-38:12, 41:19-41:25, 54:12-54:15, 69:1-69:2, ECF No. 389; U.S. Exs. 234-35, 239, 242; Emhart Exs. 326-32.) Additionally, there is evidence that NECC routinely stored barrels along the western side of the peninsula, which abuts the Woonasquatucket River. (See Emhart Exs. 10, 329, 330A, 331 — 33, 340; Locke Slides 80, 82-83, Em-hart Ex. 342; Trial Tr., vol. VII, 51:4-51:8, 69:1-69:2, ECF No. 389.) However, although small quantities of drums were sometimes stored in the specific area where Metro Atlantic manufactured trifluralin and HCP along the western side of the peninsula (see Emhart Exs. 330A, 332-33, 340; Locke Slides 80, 82-83, Emhart Ex. 342; U-S. Exs. 241, 243; Trial Tr., vol. I, 147:6-147:11, 151:8-151:11, ECF No. 383; Trial Tr., vol. VII, 69:2-69:8, 71:14-71:20, 91:14-91:16, ECF No. 389), this was not an area of significant drum storage by NECC. (See Trial Tr., vol. XX, 81:15-82:1, 83:5-83:8, 84:6-84:9, June 25, 2015, ECF No. 402.)

The amount of stockpiled drums and the places in which those drums were stored increased during NECC’s tenure on the peninsula. (See Trial Tr., vol. I, 123:12-123:17, ECF No.,383; Trial Tr., vol. VII, 34:7-34:8, 34:12-34:14, 41:25-42:1, 84:13-84:15, ECF No. 389; Emhart Exs. 325A, 333.) Although there is some testimony that NECC took everything away when it left the peninsula in the early 1970s (see, e.g., V. Buonanno 3/28/03 Dep. Tr, 178:8— 178:16; Tr. of May 16, 2013 Deposition of Vincent J. Buonanno (“V. Buonanno 5/16/13 Dep. Tr.”) 400:19-400:22), it is clear (and the parties agree) that a significant number of drums remained just to the north of the impoundment, an area ■ of standing liquid discussed in more detail below, see infra Section I.B.3.b.ii. (See Trial Tr., vol. VII, 97:22-97:24, ECF No. 389; Emhart Ex. 24.) ■ An ■ aerial photograph from March 1974 revealed evidence of tracks from earth-moving equipment in the area of the NECC buildings. (Trial Tr., vol. VII, 97:13-97:18, 98:13-98:16, ECF No. 389; Emhart Ex. 24.) Mutch concluded from the orientation of the tracks that material had been pushed into the tailrace. (Trial Tr., vol. VII, 97:15-97:18, ECF No. 389.) Additionally, several drums in this area' had found their way into the impoundment. (Id. at 97:24-98:2, 98:23-99:10; Emhart Ex. 24.)

Over the years of NECC’s operations on the peninsula, NECC employees often stacked drums on their sides in pyramids on the.ground. (See Cifelli 5/21/13 Dep. Tr. 28:15-29:14, 30:5-30:16; Tr. of Sept. 30, 2002 Deposition of Joseph Cifelli (“Cifelli 9/30/02 Dep. Tr.”) 13:9-13:18; Trial Tr., vol II, 38:2-38:6, 41:1-41:9, ECF No. 384.). Stacking drums in this fashion caused residual material to leak out of the drums and spill onto the ground. (See Cifelli 5/21/13 Dep. Tr. 29:21-30:1; Cifelli 2/13/03 Dep. Tr. 52:23-53:14; Cifelli 9/30/02 Dep, Tr. 18:7-19:2, 44:7-45:4.) Aerial photography demonstrated significant soil staining near NECC’s buildings. (See, e.g„ Trial Tr., vol. I, 129:19-129:24, ECF No. 383; Trial Tr., vol. VII, 45:24-46:2, 84:15-84:16, ECF No. 389; Emhart Exs. 10, 328, 333; U.S. Ex. 239.) Additionally, elevated concentrations of 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD were found in areas south of the HCP building footprint and north of the WDA on the western side of the peninsula, locations where NECC stored drums that do not appear to be associated with Metro Atlantic’s HCP-manufacturing operations. (See Locke Slide 97, Emhart Ex. 342; Medine Slide 22, U.S. Ex. 501; Andrews Slide 5, U.S. Ex. 542; Trial Tr., vol. XX, 123:10-124:9, 125:15-125:21, 127:10-127:17, 157:20-159:22,162:3-162:11, ECF No. 402.)

b. Dmm-Reconditioning Processes

NECC reconditioned both open-head drums and closed-head drums,, and it employed a separate reconditioning process for each type of drum.

i Open-Head Drums

NECC reconditioned open-head drums by passing them through a large, open-air incinerator. (See Trial Tr., vol. XIV, 48:25-50:22, ECF No. 396; Cifelli 9/30/02 Dep. Tr. 12:1-12:5, 14:13-15:15.) Before open-head drums could be passed through the incinerator, NECC employees rejected or set aside the drums that could not be reconditioned because of their condition or if they contained too much residue or a product that could not or should not be burned. (See Cifelli. 2/13/03 Dep. Tr. 24:19-25:13, 26:13-26:21; R. Nadeau 10/1/02 Dep. Tr. 12:1-12:7; Turcone 10/29/08 Dep. Tr. 48:17-49:4; see also Cifelli 5/21/13 Dep. Tr. 46:14-47:2.) The set-aside drums would eventually deteriorate. (See Cifelli 5/21/13 Dep. Tr. 47:3-47:16.) After unusable drums were rejected or set aside, NECC employees prepared the openhead drums for incineration by burning off any flammable liquids with a match and removing any plastic liners that the drums contained. (See R. Nadeau 6/12/13 Dep. Tr. 105:9-105:20, 205:12-205:24; R. Nadeau 10/1/02 Dep. Tr. 14:15-15:3, 67:20-69:1; Oct. 27, 2000 Aff. of Raymond Nadeau (“R. Nadeau 10/27/00 Aff.”) ¶ 4, Em-hart Ex. 206.)

The drum's were fed into the incinerator by a conveyor. (See R. Nadeau 10/27/00 Aff. ¶ 4, Emhart Ex. 206.)' The drums were placed upside down'onto the convey- or, and any residual material in the drums fell into a concrete pit below the convey- or. (See Cifelli 5/21/13 Dep. Tr. 26:3-26:6; R. Nadeau 10/27/00 Aff. ¶ 4, Emhart Ex. 206.) The conveyor took the drums through the incinerator, and ash and any further residual material" dropped into the pit; as the conveyor continued along its route, a chain at the bottom of the convey- or belt scraped into the pit any residual material that fell from the barrels but did not fall directly into the pit. (See R. Nadeau 9/10/08 Dep. Tr, 9:14-13:11; Cifelli 5/21/13 Dep. Tr., 19:22-20:23.) Although the contents of the concrete pit were periodically emptied by “a cesspool-type truck” (Cifelli 5/21/13 Dep. Tr. 26:14-26:18) and by NECC employees shoveling pit contents into empty 55-gallon drums (R. Nadeau 9/10/08 Dep. Tr. 44:19-44:23), the residues in the pit would occasionally overflow and seep into .the - ground (see Cifelli 5/21/13 Dep. Tr. 26:19-27:10; Cifelli 2/13/03 Dep. Tr. 30:11-30:13). Additional steps in the reconditioning process for open-head drums included sandblasting and painting. (See R. -Nadeau 9/10/08 Dep. Tr. 14:12-45:22; R. Nadeau 10/1/02 Dep. Tr. 49:19-50:2; Apr. 2, 2002 Aff. .of Raymond Nadeau (“R. Nadeau 4/2/02 Aff.”) ¶ 4, Emhart Ex. 207.)

Incineration creates dioxins, especially octochlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (see Trial Tr., vol. XI, 24:22-25:7, 26:8-26:10, 73:7-73:10, 73:13-73:15, 74:12-74:16, 75:4-75:10, June 5, 2015, ECF No. 393), and a Government expert referred to NECC’s open-head drum reconditioning operation as “a dioxin manufacturing machine.” (Trial Tr., vol. XVIII, 161:18, June 23, 2015, ECF No. 400; see also id. at 161:16-161:24, 162:18-162:22,) In addition to OCDD, incineration can generate some 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD. (See id. at 162:11-162:17; Trial Tr., vol. XX, 163:11-164:2, ECF No. 402.)

ii. Closed-Head Drums

NECC’s reconditioning process for closed-head drums entailed submerging drums in a tank of cleaning solution, referred' to as caustic soda, and then transferring the drums to a second tank, where rinse water was applied.' (Sée Cifelli 5/21/13 Dep. Tr. 34:20-36:14; Cifelli 2/13/03 Dép. Tr. 14:1314:24, 43:15-46:24; Tr. of March 25, 2003 Deposition of Vincent J. Buonanno (“V. Buonanno 3/25/03 Dep. Tr.”) 52:4-52:8.) The caustic soda was recycled “[u]ntil it became too strong to use” (Cifelli 2/13/03 Dep. Tr. 16:14;' see id. at 16:9-16:16); at that point, the tank containing the caustic soda was drained into the floor of the building. (See id. at 15:8-15:20.) .

Until the early 1960s, NECC conducted its closed-head drum reconditioning operations in its northernmost building, which is south of Metro Atlantic’s main building. (See Trial Tr., vol. VIII, 7:19-7:25, 10:9-11:3, ECF No. 390; Emhart Ex. 10; Locke Slides 39, 49, Emhart Ex. 342; R. Nadeau 6/12/13 Dep. Tr. 188:20-189:18, 204:18-205:1.) An aerial photograph from February 7, 1962 -reveals a possible drainage .feature from this .building to the tail-race. (See Trial Tr., vol. VII, 47:5-47:15, 87:21-88:11, ECF No. 389; Trial Tr., vol. VIII, 14:1-15:1, ECF No. 390;' Emhart Exs. 10, 339; Locke Slide 46, Emhart Ex. 342.) The Court therefore concludes that NECC likely discharged its spent caustic soda into the tailrace up until the early 1960s.

Sometime between 1962 and 1963, NECC moved its ■closed-head drum reconditioning operations to its southernmost building. (See Trial Tr., vol. VIII, 19:25-20:18, ECF No. 390; Locke Slides 48, 51, Emhart Ex. -342; R. Nadeau 6/12/13 Dep. Tr. 204:23-205:1; Cifelli 5/21/13 Dep. Tr. 33:19-34:1.) An aerial photograph from 1965 revealed an area of ponding liquid south of this building. (See Trial Tr., vol. VII, 55:21-55:24, ECF No. 389; Trial Tr., vol. VIII, 22:15-22:22, ECF No. 390; Em-hart Exs. 15, 329A, 330.) From the 1970 aerial photographs, it is apparent that NECC was discharging ■ liquid from its closed-head drum reconditioning building into this area, which the parties refer to as the impoundment. (See Trial Tr., vol. VII, 69:9-69:16, 70:25-71:4, 73:19-74:4, 75:22-76:9, ECF No. 389; Emhart Exs. 19-20, 332; Locke Slide 57, Emhart Ex. 342.) Storm water runoff in an area where NECC stored drums also drained into the impoundment. (Trial Tr., vol. VII, 74:12-74:25, ECF No. 389; Emhart Ex. 19.) The impoundment increased in size from 1970 to 1972. (Trial Tr., vol. VII, 84:17-84:21, 88:23-89:2, ECF No. 389; Emhart Exs. 332A, 333.) A berm of soil was constructed on the southwest side of the impoundment in order to contain the liquid that was discharged there. (Trial Tr., vol. VII, 85:22-86:2, 86:10-86:13, 89:2-89:3, ECF No. 389; Emhart Exs. 23, 333.)

NECC’s discharges into the impoundment did not escape the notice of the RIDOH. A letter dated January 23, 1970 from the RIDOH to NECC related that “wastes are still being discharged into an area, adjacent to [the NECC buildings] where they are likely to be washed into the Woonasquatucket River.”’ (Emhart Ex. 282; see also Maine 5/22/13 Dep. Tr. 52:2-52:15, 54:21-55:1.) Maine testified that the RIDOH was concerned about the impoundment because it was susceptible to overflow with excess rainwater and because the materials in the pit could travel with the groundwater; either scenario, Maine feared, could lead to the discharge of the materials in the impoundment into the Woonasquatucket River or the tailrace. (See- Maine 4/29/09 Dep. Tr. 17:18-17:24, 18:18-18:22; Maine 5/22/13 Dep. Tr. 15:7-15:18, 25:14-25:20, 26:14-27:6.)

This Court therefore concludes that NECC discharged its liquid waste from its closed-head drum reconditioning operations into the impoundment. (See Trial Tr., vol. VIII, 12:8-12:15, ECF No. 390.) Sampling from areas immediately adjacent to the impoundment revealed elevated concentrations of 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD, OCDD, PCBs, perchloroethylene (“PCE”), toluene, 1, 4-dichlorobenzene, and hexachloroxanthene (“HCX”). (See Locke Slides 21, 97, 99-100, Emhart Ex. 342; Sandau Slide 19, Emhart Ex. 348; Kastrinos Slides 15-16, 26, 39-40, Emhart Ex. 352; Andrews Slides 5-6, 14, U.S. Ex. 542.) However, this Court is unable to say what contaminants were present in the impoundment itself. In the early 1980s, approximately 6,000 cubic yards of soil were removed from the peninsula in connection with the construction of the Centredale Manor housing complex; although the precise boundaries of this excavation are unclear, it appears as though soil in the approximate area of the impoundment was removed. (See Trial Tr., vol. VIII, 134:3-134:7, ECF No. 390; Trial Tr., vol.' IX, 150:19-151:9, ECF No. 391; Trial Tr., vol. XV, 55:12-55:22, June 11, 2015, ECF No. 397.) Consequently, a data gap exists with respect to this area of the peninsula. (See Trial Tr., vol. VIII, 134:24-135:16, ECF No. 390; Trial Tr., vol. IX, 151:18-156:5, ECF No. 391; Trial Tr., vol. XV, 55:23-56:15, ECF No. 397; Trial Tr., vol. XX, 96:18-97:22, 149:2-150:6, ECF No. 402.)

c. NECC’s Use of the WDA

NECC deposited a variety of material into the WDA, including sludge and ash that was generated by the incinerator during reconditioning of open-head drums (see R. Nadeau 4/2/02 Aff. ¶ 3, Emhart Ex. 207; R. Nadeau 10/1/02 Dep. Tr. 15:21-16:14, 19:4 — 19:20); drum contents and residues (see Trial Tr., vol. II, 37:5-37:12, 55:1-55:19, 90:3-91:1, ECF No. 384; Oct. 28, 2000 Aff. of Edmund Izzo (“Izzo 10/28/00 Aff.”) ¶¶ 2-3, U.S. Ex. 483; R. Nadeau 4/2/02 Aff. ¶ 2, Emhart Ex. 207); drums that could not be reconditioned (see Izzo 10/28/00 Aff. ¶ 2, U.S.Ex.483; Tr. of Jan. 28, 2003 Deposition of D'avid Carbone (“Carbone 1/28/03 Dep. ‘ Tr;”) 11:23-12:3; Tr. of Oct. 20, ’2008 Deposition' of David Carbone (“Carbone 10/20/08 Dep. Tr.”) 22:11-22:21; Turcone 11/30/99 Dep. Tr. 40:1-40:17); and sandblasting and painting waste (see R. Nadeau 4/2/02 Aff. ¶ 4, Em-hart Ex. 207; Trial Tr.-, vol. II, 11:16-11:20, ECF No. 384; R. Nadeau 6/12/13 Dep. Tr. 102:25-103:19; R. Nadeau 12/17/02'Dep. Tr. 19:2-19:24; R. Nadeau 10/1/02 Dep. Tr. 49:19-50:10).

C. Metro Atlantic’s HCP-Manufacturing Operations ■ ■

Sometime between Septembér 1963 and April 1965, Metro Atlantic constructed the HCP building. (See Emhart Ex.' 15.) The “indispensable ... starting material” for the production of HCP is 2, 4, 5-trichloro-phenol (“2, 4, 5-TCP”). (Cleary Dep. Tr. 26:20-27:1; see also id. at 22:7-22:14.) Metro Atlantic purchased its 2, 4, 5-TCP in a crude sodium form (“crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP”) exclusively from Diamond Alkali Company (“Diamond Alkali”). (Id. at 48:6-48:12; see also Trial Tr., vol. XII, 120:16-120:22, June 8, 2015, ECF No. 394.) It is undisputed that Diamond Alkali’s manufacture of Na 2, 4, 5-TCP created 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD and that, consequently, the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP that Diamond Alkali delivered to Metro Atlantic contained 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD, although it is doubtful that Metro . Atlantic knew of its presence. (See NIOSH Report for Diamond Alkali 45, U.S. Ex, 48; Trial Tr., vol. II, 188:14-189:1, ECF No. 384; Trial Tr., vol. III, 37:2-37:6, ECF No. 385; Trial Tr., vol. XII, 44:19-44:25, ECF No. 394; Trial Tr., vol. XIII, 35:18-35:20, .76:5-76:7, June 9, 2015, ECF No. 395; Cleary Dep. Tr. 80:9-80:13„ 90:11-90:23, 91:13-91:19.) Because of the undisputed presence of 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD on the peninsula during Metro Atlantic’s manufacture of HCP, it. is critical to examine several aspects of Metro Atlantic’s HCP-manufacturing operation in detail. t ^

1. Storage of Crude Na 2,4, 5-TCP

Upon its arrival to Metro Atlantic, the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP was transferred from Diamond Alkali’s tanker trucks into storage tanks immediately outside of , the HCP building. (Trial Tr., vol. II, 172:2-172:5, 187:22-187:23, 191:10-191:22, ECF No. 384.) The aerial photograph experts agree that a 1965 aerial photograph shows three vertical tanks immediately to the south of the HCP building that appear to be sitting on a concrete pad. (Trial Tr., vol. I, 142:22-143:3, ECF No. 383; Trial Tr., vol. VII, 54:1-54:2, 58:17-58:21, 59:15-59:16, ECF No. 389; U.S. Ex. 240; Em-hart Exs. 15, 330.) Forrester opined that two of these tanks likely were used to store the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP from Diamond Alkali and that the third tank was used to store PCE, a solvent that was used in the HCP-manufacturing process. (Trial Tr., vol. II, 172:2-172:5, 187:22-187:23, 191:10-191:22, ECF No. 384; .Trial Tr., vol. III, 28:10-28:12, ECF No. 385.) Additionally, a May 30, 1965 article from the Providence Sunday Journal reported that “[r]aw materials are fed from large storage tanks outside the [HCP] plant.” (U.S. Ex. 193.) ..

In reaching the conclusion that the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP was stored in outdoor storage tanks at Metro Atlantic, this Court necessarily rejects the deposition testimony of Thomas Cleary, an organic chemist who invented and patented the process that Metro Atlantic used to manufacture HCP, and the testimony of Dr. James R. Kittrell, Emhart’s expert in chemical engineering. (See Cleary Dep. Tr. 7:9, 9:16-9:17, 32:12-32:20; Trial Tr., vol. XII, 144:13-144:14, 157:24-158:8, ECF No. 394.) During his deposition, Cleary stated that Metro Atlantic did not store any of the chemicals used in the HCP process in tanks. (Cleary Dep. Tr. 59:6— 59:9.) However, this assertion contradicts the Providence Sunday Journal article, which was written while Metro Atlantic’s manufacture of HCP was ongoing. Additionally, although Cleary speculated that the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP from Diamond Alkali was perhaps kept in the tanker truck that delivered it, he acknowledged that he did not know where the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP was stored. (Id. at 59:9-59:16.) This is unsurprising; Cleary was not a Metro Atlantic employee, and he visited the peninsula only two or three times per year over a period of four or five years. (Id. at 10:22-11:1, 59:17-59:23, 92:2-92:5.)

Like Cleary, Kittrell was of the opinion that the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP was transferred directly from the Diamond Alkali tanker trucks into a connection at the side of the building that led to a pipe that, in turn, led to the reaction vessel inside the plant. (Trial Tr., vol. XII, 187:11-187:23, 197:9-197:14, ECF No. 394.) In addition to relying on Cleary’s testimony for- this conclusion (id, at 186:23-187:24), Kittrell reasoned that storage of the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP in the side-by-side outdoor storage tanks would be problematic for two reasons. First, Kittrell opined that the long, tall tanks identified by Forrester as the crude Na 2,'4, 5--TCP tanks were the wrong shape for .'storage of a substance, like Diamond Alkali’s crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP, containing particulates that would likely settle to the bottom of the tank; rather, short and squat tanks of large diameter would be the preferable build for storing the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP. (Id. at 195:17-196:6.) Second, Kittrell opined that the long, tall tanks, outside of the HCP building were susceptible to freezing. (Id. at 196:7-196:17.) Therefore, Kittrell concluded that the tanker truck, unloaded one batch size into the reaction vessel- and was moved someplace else until the next batch of crude Na 2,4, 5-TCP was needed. (Id. at 187:3-187:8,197:9-197:14.)

This Court is unpersuaded by Kittrell’s theory. The problem of particulate matter in the crude' Na 2, 4, 5-TCP in the outdoor storage tanks would have been somewhat addressed by Metro Atlantic’s practice of am sparging in the tanks, which caused much of the particulate matter to remain suspended in the tanks. (See Emhart Ex. 83; Trial Tr., vol. II, 190:9-191:6, ECF No. 384.) Additionally, the danger of freezing in the storage tanks would have been mitigated by the presence of salts and sodium hydroxide in the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP as well as the air sparging of the tanks. (Trial Tr., vql, XIX, 18:4-18:13, June 24, 2015, ECF .No. 401; see also Trial Tr., vol. XIII, 106:11-106:16, ECF No. 395.) Furthermore, the tanks could have been insulated without great expense. (Trial Tr., vol. XIX, 18:14-18:20, ECF No. 401.)

Moreover, Kittrell’s theory that the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP remained in the tanker truck, which, in turn, remained on or near the peninsula, strikes this Court as impractical. Indeed, as Kittrell acknowledged, the truck driver would either have to stay somewhere close by until the truck was emptied one batch at a time or make some other arrangements for transportation from the peninsula. (See Trial Tr., vol. XIII, 188:3-188:4, ECF No. 395 (“I don’t know whether the drivers stayed there or whether he took a bus home.,..”).) Additionally, Kittrell acknowledged that he did not have, a full explanation-for how the cost to Metro.Atlantic of keeping one of Diamond Alkali’s tanker trucks on the peninsula would have impacted the profitability of its manufacture of HCP. (See id. at 187:14-188:18.); Furthermore, if the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP was loaded directly from the tanker truck one batch at a time, a second tanker truck would need to arrive before the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP in the first truck ran out in order to maintain continuity of the HCP operations. . (See id. at 100:8-100:20.) Thus, under Kittrell’s theory, at least one Diamond Alkali truck (and sometimes a second truck) would remain on or near the peninsula for periodic unloading of crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP, all while three large outdoor storage tanks sat just to the south of the HCP building.

For all of these reasons, this Court finds that the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP from Diamond Alkali was stored in outdoor storage tanks. There are two points of release of 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD that are associated with storage of the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP in outdoor storage tanks: inadvertent léaks and spills during transfer of the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP into the storage tanks; and flushing out material that settled in the-storage tanks.

. Inadvertent leaks and spills likely' occurred during the transfer of the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP from the Diamond Alkali tanker trucks to the outdoor storage tanks. (Trial Tr., vol. II, 172:18-172:20, 180:23-180:25, 187:24-188:13, ECF No. 384; see also Trial Tr., vol. XX, 153:19-153:23, ECF No. 402.) Forrester opined that the quick-connect couplings that were typically installed on tanker trucks in the mid-1960s were prone to leakage and that leakage would have occurred throughout the entire unloading process. (Trial Tr., vol. II, 186:19-187:16, ECF No. 384.) Indeed, Emhart acknowledged the possibility of leaks from tanker trucks in at least one of its filings in the Home Insurance litigation. (Emhart Reply Brief in Home Insurance Case 19, U.S. Ex. 87.)

Kittrell opined that it was unlikely that spills or leaks occurred during the transfer of the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP from the tanker trucks. (Trial Tr., vol. XII, 190:8-191:3, ECF No. 394.) Kittrell reasoned that the aerial photographs revealed no evidence of ground staining. (Id. at 193:1— 193:6.) Additionally, he emphasized that the' crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP was a foul, odiferous substance that “operators would .[not] willingly drop in and around their feet” during the transfer.' (Id. at 192:20-193:1.)

However, Kittrell acknowledged that the spillage of a few drops during the transfer was typical. (Id. at 191:4-191:6; Trial Tr., vol. XIII, 38:2-38:13, 108:2-108:3, 195:19-195:22, ECF No. 395.) Similarly, William Locke — Emhart’s expert in environmental engineering- and environmental forensics (among other areas) — testified that no expert could rule out the possibility that inadvertent leaks and spills occurred during the transfer. (Trial Tr., vol. VII, 138:24, 149:18-150:17, ECF No. 389; Trial Tr., vol. VIII, 153:15-153:19, ECF No. 390.) Additionally, Kittrell acknowledged that spills could happen if the transfer was performed “sloppily.” (Trial Tr., vol. XII, 190:21-190:22, ECF No. 394.) The history of industrial activities on the peninsula is replete with sloppy handling of chemicals by truck drivers making deliveries. For example, a tank of liquid formaldehyde exploded “when a deliveryman mistook a full tank of formaldehyde for an empty one.” (N. Providence Fire Dept. Fire Reports 17, U.S. Ex. 16.) Along similar lines, Joseph Nadeau recalled a fire that was started when a truck driver attempted to direct methanol from a pipe in Metro Atlantic’s- main building to a portable heater that the truck driver used to keep warm in his truck. (Trial Tr., vol. XIV, 23:8-24:2, ECF No. 396.)

Thus, this Court finds that inadvertent leaks and spills occurred during the transfer of the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP from the tanker truck into the outdoor storage tanks. With respect to the quantity of those leaks and spills, Forrester opined that the spills could consist of a gallon or less. (Trial Tr., vol. XIX, 61:3-61:17, ECF No. 401.) In each gallon, there was approximately 30 milligrams, or 0.00003 kilograms, of 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD. (Id. at 63:16-64:8; Forrester Slide 4, Emhart Ex. 354.) Thus, the total concentration of 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD spilled during all of the transfers from the tanker truck to the storage tanks was between approximately 0.00009 to 0.00039 kilograms, depending on the quantity of crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP that Metro Atlantic brought onto the peninsula during the time period it manufactured HCP! (Trial Tr., vol. XIX, 67:5-67:19, ECF' No. 401; Forrester Slide 8, Emhart Ex. 354.)

Some of the salt and other particles, including some 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD, from the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP would settle in the storage tanks. (Trial Tr., vol. II, 180:25— 181:2, 182:20-182:22, 183:15-183:19, 193:20-193:21, ECF No. 384-; see also Trial Tr., vol. XIII, 101:1-101:4, ECF No. 395.) This settled material whs likely flushed out of the storage tank with hot water and was directed to either a drain of some type inside the HCP building or the ground next to the storage tank. (Trial Tr., vol. II, 193:6-193:8, 194:22-194:24, 195:13-195:17, 196:1-196:7, ECF No. 384; Trial Tr., vol. III, 32:21-32:25, 70:8-70:12, ECF No. 385; Trial Tr., vol. IV, 14:16-15:6, ECF No. 386.) Forrester opined that the disposal of the salt and - other particles that had settled in the storage tanks “would have been a significant release” of 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD. (Trial Tr., vol. II, 182:17-182:22, ECF No. 384; see also id. at 194:12-194:15.) He estimated that 20 percent of the 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD contained in the crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP that was unloaded into the tanks would have settled at the bottom of the tanks. (Trial Tr., vol. III, 31:14-31:17, ECF No. 385.)

2. Duration of Metro Atlantic’s HCP-Manufacturing Operations

The. parties dispute the duration of Metro Atlantic’s HCP-manufacturing .operations. (See Gov’t’s Proposed Findings of Fact (“Gov’t’s PFOF”) ¶¶8, 214, ECF No. 379 (approximately two years); Emhart’s Post-trial Br. 29, 36-39, ECF No. 378 (less than a year).) Cleary testified that he “[o]nly vaguely” recalled the duration of Metro Atlantic’s HCP-manufacturing process arid thought that it was “[pjrobably— less than a year.” (Cleary Dep. Tr. 53:25.) Similarly, ’ Kittrell opined, based on his Gantt-chart analysis, that' Metro Atlantic manufactured HCP for eight to nine months. (Trial Tr., vol. XIII, 32:8-32:22, 33:13-33:16, ECF No. 395; Kittrell Slide 13, Emhart Ex. 350.) However, a bill of materials that was used by Metro Atlantic in the HCP-manufacturing process was admitted into ’ evidence in this case, and it bears'a date of June 1964. {See U.S. Ex. 90.) Forrester opined that the commencement of Metro Atlantic’s HCP-manufacturing operations closely followed on the heels of the preparation of this bill of materials. {See Trial Tr.; vol. Ill, 15:2-15:9, ECF No. 385.) Additionally, in late March 1966, Metro Atlantic and Diamond Alkali discussed a titration problem that Metro Atlantic was haying with its crude Na 2, 4, 5-TCP, and this correspondence .indicates that Metro Atlantic was still manufacturing HCP at this date. {See Emhart Ex. 83;- Trial Tr., vol. II, 189:21-191:6, ECF No. 384; Trial Tr., vol. XIX, 39:17-39:24, ECF No. 401.) Although this Court need not definitively decide the duration of Metro Atlantic’s HCP-manufaeturing operation, it appears most likely that it went on for longer than one year. (See Trial Tr., vol. XIX, 39:17-39:24, ECF No. 401.)

Additionally, there are two interrelated issues that flow from the dispute about the duration of Metro Atlantic’s HCP operation: the number of days that it took for Metro Atlantic to process a batch of HCP; and the volume of Na 2, 4, 5-TCP brought onto the peninsula in connection with Metro Atlantic’s manufacture of HCP. Experts on both sides offer competing answers to these questions. Kittrell opined that, based on the number of employees who worked in the HCP building, it would take three days of eight to twelve hours of operation to manufacture one batch of HCP. (See Trial Tr., vol. XII, 182:14-183:12, ECF No. 394.) Kittrell noted that manufacturing HCP at this, rate for 8-9 months would consume about. 25,000 kilograms, or approximately 55,000 pounds, of Na 2, 4, 5-TCP, which was the quantity that Cleary informed the EPA that Metro Atlantic used. (See id. at 183:13-183:25; Cleary Addendum to Gardner Mem. 1, Emhart Ex. 108; Kittrell Slide 13, Emhart Ex. 350.)

However, • Forrester opined that Metro Atlantic likely manufactured one batch of HCP per day, operating on a 24-hour basis. (Trial Tr., vol. III, 174:20-174:22, ECF No. 385.) There is evi