Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MILLER, District Judge. Plaintiffs Dana Corporation, General Motors Corporation, United Technologies Automotive, Inc., and Warsaw Black Oxide, Inc. commenced this action for cost recovery and contribution under Sections 107 and 113 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). The plaintiffs seek recovery from the numerous defendants of the past and future response costs at a former landfill site near the City of Claypool, Indiana known as the Lakeland Disposal Service Superfund Site (the “Site”), which is on the Superfund National Priority List. The total costs associated with the investigation and remediation of the Site may approach $20 million. Ten defendants have moved for summary judgment on the issue of whether they are generators under CERCLA. Oral argument on the motions was heard on September 16,1994. At that hearing, the plaintiffs orally requested an opportunity to file supplemental materials in support of John Tatum’s assumptions and a supplemental brief on the applicable legal standards. Since then, American Standard and Syracuse Rubber have sought leave to file supplemental briefs. The court believes that all parties had more than adequate opportunities to submit written argument before the September 16 hearing, and so denies each of those motions. In Part I of this opinion, the court discusses the basic facts surrounding the case; discussion of the facts surrounding the parties to the summary judgment motions is reserved for Part III. In Part II-A, the court rejects various parties’ suggestions that some different standard governs summary judgment motions in CERCLA eases. The court concludes that the plaintiffs bear the same burden in this case as do all plaintiffs facing summary judgment motions: they must come forth with, evidence that would be sufficient to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law at trial; nothing more and nothing less. Application of this standard in Part III of the opinion demonstrates that speculative evidence — testimony that an event “could have happened” or was “possible” — does not satisfy this burden. Part II-B addresses an issue not clearly answered by other courts: what sort of showing, short of direct evidence that a defendant’s hazardous waste was disposed of at the site in question, will suffice to allow a CERCLA plaintiff to survive a motion for judgment as a matter of law, and hence survive a summary judgment motion. The court concludes that while the plaintiff must present evidence sufficient to support, by a preponderance of the evidence, a finding that a defendant’s hazardous waste was disposed of at the site in question, the plaintiff may satisfy this burden through the use of circumstantial evidence. If the plaintiff demonstrates that the defendant produced a continuous and predictable waste stream that included hazardous constituents of the sort eventually found at the site, and that at least some significant part of that continuous and predictable waste stream was disposed of at the site, the factfinder reasonably may infer that the defendant’s hazardous waste was disposed of at the site. If the plaintiff cannot demonstrate such a continuous and predictable waste stream, or is unable to show that a significant part of the defendant’s waste stream reached the site, the plaintiff must present some further evidence to justify a reasonable factfinder in inferring that the defendant contributed to the hazardous waste at the site. In Part III of the opinion, the court applies this standard to the claims against the ten moving defendants. Part II-C of the opinion addresses various objections to expert affidavits and deposition testimony offered by the plaintiffs in opposition to the summary judgment motions. Because of the parties’ extensive disagreement concerning the facts contained in the record, this opinion, in a departure from this court’s usual practice, contains extensive footnote references to the record before the court. Sadly, Part III of this opinion demonstrates a troubling unreliability in the plaintiffs’ representations as to what is in the record before the court. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Lakeland Disposal Service, Inc. (“LDS”) was a waste disposal service that hauled its customers’ waste in compactor trucks (standard rear-loaded garbage trucks), roll-offs (large metal box-type containers), and in vacuum-type pumper trucks for liquid wastes. LDS operated the Site as a landfill from about May 1974 until about August 1978. LDS had residential and business, including industrial, customers. The Guide Lamp Division of General Motors was the single largest LDS customer whose waste was disposed of at the Site. Liquid wastes were hauled in tank trucks and then deposited directly onto the soil at the Site. Drummed wastes were buried at the Site. Roll-off and compactor truck waste were disposed of throughout the surface of the Site. The roll-off and compactor truck waste were bulldozed and covered daily. David Lindsay became the owner and operator of LDS in 1973 and of the Site in May 1974. Mr. Lindsay’s operation of the site continued until June 1976 (the “Lindsay era”). During the Lindsay era, LDS utilized several area landfills to dispose of the waste it collected from its customers: Scott’s Landfill, Ransbottom/Custer/Packerton Landfill, Likens/Hoss Hills Landfill, and the Site. LDS hauled sludge waste exclusively to the Site during the Lindsay era. LDS drivers would not use the Site for roll-off and compactor trash if another landfill was more economical, that is, based on the relative proximity of the customer to another landfill. Mr. Lindsay sold LDS and the Site to Stephen W. Shambaugh on or about June 1, 1976. Mr. Shambaugh owned and operated the Site from June 1, 1976 until August 1978 (the “Shambaugh era”). LDS utilized several area landfills, including Scott’s, Ransbottom/Custer/Paekerton, Spring Valley/Dunn & Shambaugh, Beer & Slabaugh, Wabash Valley, Adams Center, and the Site. Mr. Shambaugh disposed of what he considered to be trash (roll-off and compactor truck waste) at the other area landfills. As during the Lindsay era, LDS drivers were to take roll-off waste to the landfill nearest the customer. Mr. Shambaugh used the Site for what he considered to be hazardous substances, since he could earn more money disposing of hazardous substances at the Lakeland Landfill. During both the Lindsay and Shambaugh eras, all bulk liquid industrial waste hauled by LDS was disposed of at the Site. With the exception of drummed paint sludges received from the General Motors Anderson, Indiana plant after April 1977, all drummed waste hauled by LDS was disposed of at the Site. The General Motors drummed paint sludges were disposed of at the Spring Valley Landfill. Mr. Shambaugh recalled disposing of trash at the Site during a six month period of time in 1977 or 1978. Trash was accepted because Mr. Shambaugh believed he needed to mix trash with General Motors’ hazardous paint sludge that was disposed of at the Site. A trench was excavated for the purpose of mixing trash with General Motors’ paint sludge. LDS also hauled trash to other landfills while the trench was open. Once the trench was full, most roll-off and compactor truck trash went to the Ransbottom Landfill at Paekerton. Virtually all LDS drivers agree that a substantial amount of roll-off waste went to other landfills during the Shambaugh era. Paul Phillipy testified that “a lot” of trash went to the Ransbottom Landfill and to Scott’s Landfill. Mr. Tillman testified that from 1976 through 1978 he “normally went to Packer-ton [Ransbottom].” Mr. Tillman did not think that he ever disposed of trash at the Site during those years. Most of the waste hauled from customers located from north Warsaw to the south went to the Ransbottom Landfill. By late spring or early summer of 1978, the Site no longer accepted any roll-off and compactor truck waste (trash); all roll-off and compactor truck waste hauled by LDS went to other landfills. The Site was closed in August 1978. With a few exceptions, the majority of LDS records do not indicate at which area landfill a particular customer’s waste was disposed. First, hundreds of landfill receipts given LDS by area landfills indicate that LDS hauled customer waste to the other landfills. Most of these landfill receipts do not indicate the customer from whom LDS hauled the waste, but some do specifically identify the source of the waste. Second, the “Kosciusko County Landfill Receipts”— used by the Site while it was open to the general public from January through March 1975 — indicate that a particular customer’s waste was disposed of at the Site. Third, the SPC-17 liquid waste hauler reports also indicate that a particular customer’s liquid waste was hauled to the Site. II. GENERAL DISCUSSION A. Summary Judgment Standard Several defendants contend that because the plaintiffs did not file a “Statement of Genuine Issues” with their answer brief in compliance with Rule 56.1 of the Local Rules for the Northern District of Indiana, the court should “assume that the faet[s] as claimed and supported by admissible evidence by the moving party are admitted to exist without controversy”. N.D.Ind.L.R. 56.1. The Seventh Circuit has “endorsed the exacting obligation” such a rule imposes on the non-moving party, remarking that “district courts are not obliged in our adversary system to scour the record looking for factual disputes.” See Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 922 (7th Cir.1994) (citing eases). The Seventh Circuit has upheld strict enforcement of such a rule by the district courts, id., but whether to strictly apply such a rule is within the district court’s sound discretion. Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d at 923, (citing McGann v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. Corp., 8 F.3d 1174, 1178 n. 3 (7th Cir.1993); Schulz v. Serfilco, Ltd., 965 F.2d 516, 519 (7th Cir.1992)). This court’s June 28, 1994 order afforded the plaintiffs an opportunity to comply with District Rule 56.1 in an effort to avoid scouring the massive record before it in search of factual disputes. The court believes that strict application of District Rule 56.1 in this particular cause would not further the ends of justice, and, therefore, the court will not assume that the facts as claimed by the defendants and supported by admissible evidence are deemed admitted. Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment should be granted where: the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. No genuine issue of material fact exists “where the record as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” Juarez v. Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc., 957 F.2d 317, 322 (7th Cir.1992) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1355, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510-12, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). No genuine issue as to any material fact is created by “evidence of purportedly disputed facts if those facts are not plausible in light of the entire record.” See Czajkowski v. City of Chicago, Illinois, 810 F.Supp. 1428, 1432 (N.D.Ill.1992) (citing Covalt v. Carey Canada, Inc., 950 F.2d 481, 485 (7th Cir.1991)). The parties cannot rest on mere allegations in the pleadings or upon conclusory allegations in affidavits. See, e.g., CBS, Inc. v. Henkin, 803 F.Supp. 1426, 1430 (N.D.Ind.1992) (citing cases). The court must view the record and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the non-moving party, and where a fact is disputed, the non-moving party must show that the disputed fact is material under the applicable law. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Chicago Housing Authority, 12 F.3d 92, 95 (7th Cir.1993); Titran v. Ackman, 893 F.2d 145 (7th Cir.1990); Conery v. Bath Assoc., 803 F.Supp. 1388, 1392-1393 (N.D.Ind.1992); see also Chambers v. American Trans Air, Inc., 17 F.3d 998, 1002 (7th Cir.1994) (“Rule 56 requires the party opposing a summary judgment motion to come forward with some evidence showing the existence of ... a factual dispute”), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Aug. 2, 1994) (No. 94-547). The non-movant’s allegations must be taken as true and given the benefit of the doubt when in conflict with those alleged by the party moving for summary judgment. Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 347-48, 96 S.Ct. 2074, 2078-79, 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976); Thornton v. Evans, 692 F.2d 1064, 1074-75 (7th Cir.1982); United States v. Wedzeb Enterprises, Inc., 809 F.Supp. 646, 649 (S.D.Ind.1992). Summary judgment is appropriate “when the opposing party is unable to make a showing sufficient to prove an essential element of a case on which the opposing party bears the burden of proof.” Common v. Williams, 859 F.2d 467, 469 (7th Cir.1988); see also United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 829 F.Supp. 1023, 1026 (N.D.Ind.1993). The non-moving party must come forward with more than a mere scintilla of evidence in support of its position, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. at 2510, and must establish that there is more than “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356. The plaintiffs contend that an “especially stringent” summary judgment standard applies in CERCLA actions because CERCLA is a remedial statute and courts broadly construe CERCLA so as to achieve its objectives. See Brief in Opposition, pp. 16-17 (citing Nurad, Inc. v. William E. Hooper & Sons Co., 966 F.2d 837, 845-46 (4th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 377, 121 L.Ed.2d 288 (1992); United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 964 F.2d 252, 258 (3rd Cir.1992); United States v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 820 F.Supp. 1118, 1119 (S.D.Ind.1991); United States v. Kramer, 757 F.Supp. 397, 416-17 (D.N.J.1991)). The eases cited by the plaintiffs do no more than support the proposition that CERCLA is a remedial statute to be construed broadly; they do not support the plaintiffs’ contention that summary judgment motions in CERCLA actions are subject to “especially stringent standards” in comparison to other cases. As one district court has explained, “[T]he Act [CERCLA] cannot operate in a vacuum____ Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are an instrumental tool in orchestrating litigation through the courts, and nothing in CERCLA suggests that the rules be subordinated to the Act.” Rhodes v. County of Darlington, S.C., 833 F.Supp. 1163, 1198 (D.S.C.1992); see also CBS, Inc. v. Henkin, 803 F.Supp. 1426 (N.D.Ind.1992) (applying Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 standards in a CERCLA action); Akzo Coatings, Inc. v. Aigner Co., 803 F.Supp. 1380 (N.D.Ind.1992) (same), aff'd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 30 F.3d 761 (7th Cir.1994); Amcast Industrial Corp. v. Detrex Corp., 779 F.Supp. 1519, 1524-25 (N.D.Ind.1991) (same), aff'd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 2 F.3d 746 (7th Cir.1993), and cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 691, 126 L.Ed.2d 658 (1994). The summary judgment standard is not heightened in a CERCLA cause of action. B. CERCLA Liability CERCLA liability is established if (1) the site in question was a “facility”, as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 9601(9); (2) the defendant is a responsible person under § 9607(a); (3) a release or a threatened release of a hazardous substance has occurred; and (4) the release or threatened release has caused the plaintiff to incur response costs. Kerr-McGee Chemical v. Lefton Iron & Metal Co., 14 F.3d 321, 325 (7th Cir.1994); Environmental Transp. Systems, Inc. v. ENSCO, Inc., 969 F.2d 503, 506 (7th Cir.1992); Amoco Oil Co. v. Borden, Inc., 889 F.2d 664, 668 (5th Cir.1989); New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032, 1043 (2nd Cir.1985); United States v. Wedzeb Enterprises, 809 F.Supp. 646, 652 (S.D.Ind.1992). At issue in the defendants’ motions for summary judgment is whether the defendants are “responsible persons” under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a). A “responsible person” includes: any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or treatment, of hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person, by any other party or entity, at any facility owned or operated by another party or entity and containing such hazardous substances____ 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a); see also United States v. Wedzeb Enterprises, 809 F.Supp. at 654 n. 10. To establish CERCLA liability, the plaintiffs must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each defendant’s waste was disposed of at the Site and that hazardous substances similar to those found in the defendants’ waste were present at the Site at the time of release. See, e.g., United States v. Monsanto Co., 858 F.2d 160, 169 n. 15 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1106, 109 S.Ct. 3156, 104 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1989); Massachusetts v. Blackstone Valley Elec. Co., 808 F.Supp. 912, 914 (D.Mass.1992); City of New York v. Exxon Corp., 766 F.Supp. 177, 191 (S.D.N.Y.1991); United States v. Marisol, Inc., 725 F.Supp. 833, 840 (M.D.Pa.1989) (“The minimal causal nexus required by CERCLA is met when the plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s hazardous waste was deposited at the site and that the substances contained in the defendant’s waste were also found at the site.” (citation omitted)); O’Neil v. Picil lo, 682 F.Supp. 706, 718 n. 2 (D.R.I.1988), aff'd, 883 F.2d 176 (1st Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1071, 110 S.Ct. 1115, 107 L.Ed.2d 1022 (1990); United States v. Wade, 577 F.Supp. 1326, 1332-1333 (E.D.Penn.1983); see also United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 964 F.2d at 266 (“the Government must simply prove that the defendant’s hazardous substances were deposited at the site”) (emphasis added)). The plaintiffs need not trace the ownership of each generic chemical compound found at the Site. See, e.g., United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 964 F.2d at 264; United States v. Monsanto Co., 858 F.2d 160, 169-70 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1106, 109 S.Ct. 3156, 104 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1989); New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032, 1044 (2nd Cir.1985); Massachusetts v. Blackstone Valley Elec. Co., 808 F.Supp. at 915; Trinity Indus. Inc. v. Dixie Carriers, Inc., No. 90-2349, 1992 WL 161123, at *5 (E.D.La. June 24, 1992). The plaintiffs incorrectly imply that the defendants bear the burden of showing that none of their hazardous waste was disposed of at the Lakeland site, citing Massachusetts v. Blackstone Valley Elec. Co., 808 F.Supp. 912. The plaintiffs have the burden of proof as to each element of their claim against the defendants. The defendants, as' the moving parties, need only establish that the plaintiffs have insufficient evidence to prove each element of their claims; the defendants have no burden to prove that the plaintiffs’ claims are not true. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324-325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553-2554, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Pommier v. Peoples Bank Marycrest, 967 F.2d 1115, 1118 (7th Cir.1992). Under CERCLA, a “hazardous substance” is either a U.S. EPA-designated “element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance,” CERCLA § 101(14)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14)(B), or a hazardous waste having characteristics listed under one of several statutes. CERCLA § 101(14)(C), 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14)(C); see also United States v. Serafini, 750 F.Supp. 168, 170 (M.D.Pa.1990). A waste need not contain a certain concentration of a listed hazardous substance to be considered a CERCLA hazardous waste. See, e.g., United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 964 F.2d at 264; Amoco Oil Co. v. Borden, Inc., 889 F.2d at 669; Massachusetts v. Blackstone Valley Elec. Co., 808 F.Supp. at 915 (“liability does not turn on the disposal of a particular quantity of a hazardous substance”); United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 755 F.Supp. 531, 538 (N.D.N.Y.1991); City of New York v. Exxon Corp., 744 F.Supp. 474, 483 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (CERCLA liability attaches “regardless of the concentration of the hazardous substances present in a defendant’s waste”) (citations omitted), opinion adhered to on reconsideration by, 766 F.Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y.1991). The plaintiffs attempt to distinguish this cause from the decisions in United States v. Atlas Minerals & Chemicals, Inc., No. 91-5118, 1993 WL 518421 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 7, 1993), B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Murtha, 840 F.Supp. 180, 184 (D.Conn.1993), B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Murtha, 815 F.Supp. 539 (D.Conn.1993), Gallagher v. T.V. Spano Bldg. Corp., 805 F.Supp. 1120 (D.Del.1992), and Barnes Landfill, Inc. v. Town of Highland, 802 F.Supp. 1087 (S.D.N.Y.1992), but these eases are more closely analogous to this action than the cases upon which the plaintiffs rely. In United States v. Atlas Minerals & Chem., No. 91-5118, 1993 WL 518421, at *6, the court found that the plaintiffs had presented no evidence that a defendant’s office trash contained hazardous substances. The only “evidence” presented was an expert’s opinion about composition of the defendant’s office waste, based on the expert’s knowledge of the general composition of office waste. Id. at *2. In Gallagher v. T.V. Spano Bldg. Corp., 805 F.Supp. at 1128, the summary judgment was granted to the defendant because the plaintiffs failed to present evidence that the defendant disposed of hazardous substances at the site in question. The record established merely that the defendant disposed of “site preparation and construction debris”. 805 F.Supp. at 1130. The court determined that the references to the release of hazardous substances — an EPA survey revealed the presence of some hazardous substances at the site, but there was no evidence indicating how or when those substances came to be at the site—constituted a “mere scintilla of evidence”. 805 F.Supp. at 1180 and n. 8; see also Barnes Landfill v. Town of Highland, 802 F.Supp. 1087 (complaint dismissed where defendant was known to have contributed only paper and kitchen garbage). The plaintiffs challenge the applicability of B.F. Goodrich v. Murtha, 840 F.Supp. 180, questioning the factual basis upon which the court granted summary judgment. In ruling on the summary judgment motion, the court found that certain defendants could not be held liable if they contributed only ordinary items of commerce — e.g., tires, used bottles of photocopy toner, white-out, household cleaners — because those items were not specifically listed as hazardous substances by the EPA. 840 F.Supp. at 187-90. The court stated, “[a]bsent a finding by EPA that a particular product warrants classification as a HS [hazardous substance], 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9602, it cannot be found that the product, notwithstanding its constituent elements, is an HS or HW [hazardous waste].” 815 F.Supp. at 546 (citing United States v. Serafini, 750 F.Supp. 168 (M.D.Pa.1990) (holding that the defendant could not be held liable under CERCLA for depositing waste which, although not itself a hazardous substance, would release listed hazardous substances when burned)). Evidence that municipal defendants contributed nothing more than municipal sohd waste to the site was not a sufficient basis for holding the municipal defendants hable. B.F. Goodrich v. Murtha, 840 F.Supp. at 187-88. The Murtha court ruled that the expert’s conclusion, based upon knowledge of the composition of generic municipal, commercial, and household sohd waste, was insufficient to prove that the municipal defendants’ waste necessarily contained hazardous substances. 840 F.Supp. at 187-89. The court reasoned: The soundness of the ... claim must be judged on the Brown [expert] affidavit____ Neither the complaint nor the record created for deciding the summary judgment motions identifies a specific HS [hazardous substance] in the MSW [municipal sohd waste] of any MG [municipal generator]. 840 F.Supp. at 188. The court concluded that the municipal defendants could not be held Hable under CERCLA without further evidence of the type and quantity of materials they allegedly disposed. 840 F.Supp. at 189. As to the non-municipal defendants, the court required direct evidence that a specific hazardous substance had been disposed of at the site. See, e.g., 840 F.Supp. at 191. The court determined that, assuming the non-municipal defendants had handled hsted hazardous substances, the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence that the defendants actually disposed of the hazardous substances at the site in question. Id. The defendants in these cited cases — see, e.g., United States v. Atlas Minerals & Chem., No. 91-5118, 1993 WL 518421, at *6; Barnes Landfill v. Town of Highland, 802 F.Supp. 1087 — produced non-industrial, essentially nonhazardous waste streams. Thus, no reasonable inference concerning disposal of a hazardous substance could be drawn from the fact of known shipment or disposal of waste. Similarly, the plaintiffs in the cited cases offered no specific or direct evidence that the defendants disposed of a known hazardous substance at the site in question. The courts required the plaintiffs to come forward with more than general allegations and conclusory affidavits to survive summary judgment; the courts required the plaintiffs to present evidence of disposal of a known hazardous substance at the site in question. In contrast, with the exception of New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032 (2nd Cir.1985), a § 107(a)(1) owner case in which generator habihty was not at issue, all of the cases cited by the plaintiffs, see Brief in Opposition, pp. 24-27, involved a defendant that generated a predictable and relatively consistent hazardous substance waste stream. United States v. Monsanto Co., 858 F.2d 160 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1106, 109 S.Ct. 3156, 104 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1989) (generator defendants shipped drums and containers of known hazardous substances to site); United States v. Schmalz, 823 F.Supp. 644 (E.D.Wis.1993) (defendant paper mill generated fly ash waste); Massachusetts v. Blackstone Valley Elec. Co., 808 F.Supp. 912 (defendant electric utility company generated gas production waste); Arizona v. Motorola, Inc., 805 F.Supp. 742 (D.Ariz.1992) (defendant manufactured aircraft engines generating a metal grinding sludge); Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Dixie Carriers, Inc., No. 90-2349, 1992 WL 161123 (E.D.La. June 24, 1992) (defendant industrial barge cleaner generated benzene-laden waste oils); United States v. New Castle County, 769 F.Supp. 591 (D.Del.1991) (defendant manufactured compounded plastics); United States v. Kramer, 757 F.Supp. 397 (D.N.J.1991) (defendants generated industrial wastes); United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 755 F.Supp. 531 (defendant manufactured aluminum generating an industrial emulsion fluid); City of New York v. Exxon Corp., 744 F.Supp. 474 (S.D.N.Y.1990), opinion adhered to on reconsideration by 766 F.Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (defendant Alcan manufactured aluminum products); United States v. Ottati & Goss, Inc., 630 F.Supp. 1361 (D.N.H.1985) (defendants disposed of drums containing hazardous substances); United States v. Carolaum, 21 Env’t Rep.Cas. (BNA) 2124, 1984 WL 178909 (D.S.C. June 15, 1984) (Mobil Oil generated water-based paint waste). In the cases cited by the plaintiffs, a lower level of proof was required to establish that the defendants disposed of hazardous substances at the site in question. First, because the defendants’ waste streams contained known hazardous substances, the courts could infer from the fact of disposal of waste that the defendants disposed of hazardous substances. Such an inference is not permissible with respect to defendants that do not generate waste streams containing known hazardous substances. Second, Massachusetts v. Blackstone Valley Elec. Co., 808 F.Supp. 912 (D.Mass.1992), Arizona v. Motorola, Inc., 774 F.Supp. 566 (D.Ariz.1991), and United States v. New Castle County, 769 F.Supp. 591 (D.Del.1991), do not support the plaintiffs’ claim of sufficiency of their evidence that the defendants disposed of waste at the Site. In those eases, drivers for the waste hauler (as well as the facility’s owner in Motorola), testified that they disposed of the defendants’ waste at the CERCLA facility. See Massachusetts v. Blackstone Valley Elec. Co., 808 F.Supp. at 915; Arizona v. Motorola, 774 F.Supp. at 576; United States v. New Castle County, 769 F.Supp. at 599. The defendant in Blackstone Valley, 808 F.Supp. at 915, did not dispute that its waste was taken to the facility; the defendant in Motorola, 774 F.Supp. at 575, admitted that its waste was disposed of at the facility. These cases thus differ from the case at bar with respect to the defendants that dispute that their waste was disposed of at the Site. The plaintiffs contend that B.F. Goodrich v. Murtha, 840 F.Supp. 180, cited by several defendants, is distinguishable on three grounds. First, the plaintiffs contend that the defendants in the case at bar contributed at least some waste to the Site. As set forth below in the discussions of each defendant, this contention is not accurate with respect to all defendants. Second, the plaintiffs contend Murtha was based on an erroneous premise “that a waste containing admittedly hazardous substances cannot be considered ‘hazardous’ under CERCLA unless it is specifically described as such by the U.S. EPA.” The plaintiffs contend that “the mere fact that a generator’s hazardous substances are mixed into generic wastes that are not specifically named as such” cannot save a defendant from CERCLA liability. The plaintiffs overstate the cases cited to support their contention; the nature of the waste involved in each case is radically different from the nature of the wastes allegedly involved in this cause. “To distinguish a waste solution or mixture from its hazardous constituents defies reason.” United States v. Carolawn Co., 21 Env’t Rep.Cas. (BNA) 2124, 2126 (D.S.C. June 15, 1984) (emphasis added). If a chemical reaction would be required to cause a party’s non-hazardous waste to generate a hazardous substance, then the likelihood that the reaction could occur at the CERCLA site must be established in order to hold the party hable for disposing of a hazardous substance. ‡ Hs ‡ ‡ & * When a defendant’s waste is a mixture, like lead-based paint, the dissociation of the hazardous substance from the waste can be presumed and the party disposing of the mixture should be held hable under CERCLA.... United States v. New Castle County, 769 F.Supp. at 596-97; see also Arizona v. Motorola, 774 F.Supp. at 568-569 (holding grinding sludge composed of either hydraulic oil or water-based coolant and various metal grinding particles was hazardous substance); United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 755 F.Supp. at 540 (waste emulsion mixture of water and mineral oil containing concentrations of metal was hazardous substance); United States v. Carolawn Co., 21 Env’t Rep. Cas. (BNA) 2124 (D.S.C. June 15, 1984) (court held water-based paint wastes were hazardous substances); cf. United States v. Serafini, 750 F.Supp. 168 (M.D.Pa.1990) (holding that the defendant could not be held liable under CERCLA for depositing waste which, although not itself a hazardous substance would release hsted hazardous substances when burned). The plaintiffs have presented no evidence that each defendant’s waste was a mixture or solution containing hazardous substances similar to those in the cases cited by the plaintiffs from which a release of a hazardous substance could reasonably be inferred. The plaintiffs contend that Serafini provides no guidance in this cause, because none of the materials sent by the defendants have a similar requirement for their release into the environment. To even reach this contention, the plaintiffs first must present some evidence that each defendant’s waste hauled to the Site contained hazardous substances. See, e.g., Jastram v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 844 F.Supp. 1139, 1140 (E.D.La.1994) (holding the defendants not liable under CERCLA for the costs of cleanup of brine or salt water, which were not defined as CERCLA hazardous substances), clarification denied, No. CIV. A. 92-0763, 1994 WL 90391 (E.D.La. Mar. 16, 1994) Summarizing the discussion of the summary judgment and CERCLA standards, the plaintiffs’ obligation under Rule 56 is -no different because this is a CERCLA case. The plaintiffs must present evidence which, when all reasonable inferences are drawn in the plaintiffs’ favor, is sufficient to allow a trier of fact to find that it is more likely than not that a given defendant sent identifiable hazardous waste to the site in question. As in every summary judgment case, the defendants have no burden of proving the contrary, but merely must point out the alleged defects in the plaintiffs’ proof. That CERCLA is a remedial statute does not affect the operation of Rule 56. Because reasonable, permissive inferences must be drawn in the plaintiffs’ favor at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiffs need not present eyewitness testimony providing a complete chain of custody of hazardous waste from a defendant to the landfill. It is sufficient if circumstances allow an inference from which a trier of fact could make a finding by a preponderance of the evidence. So, in several cases cited by the plaintiffs, courts have held that if the plaintiffs show that a defendant generated a predictable and relatively consistent waste stream that included hazardous waste of a sort ultimately found at the site, and that defendant’s waste was regularly taken to the site, an inference that the waste found at the site came from that defendant is permissible and is sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion, even if it would not ultimately be sufficient to persuade the trier of fact. As in any summary judgment case, the plaintiffs must make their showing, whether directly or indirectly, through evidence that has probative value, meaning there must be something more than testimony that something “could be” or “might be” — in other words, there must be evidence of something beyond a witness effectively saying that “anything’s possible”, because such evidence is not sufficient to support a finding. C. Objections to the Plaintiffs’ Evidence Several defendants have objected to the plaintiffs’ use of certain evidence: (1) Robert Call’s deposition testimony; (2) the Smith Affidavit; and (3) the Tatum Affidavit. These objections will be addressed in turn. 1. Deposition Testimony of Robert Call Various defendants, including Huber, Hunt & Nichols, K-Mart, and Zimmer, object to the use of Robert Call’s deposition testimony because (1) Mr. Call’s testimony lacks credibility, and (2) Mr. Call’s deposition was not completed. Determinations of the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence are not within the court’s province when considering a summary judgment motion. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2513, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Thus, the issue of Mr. Call’s credibility is not before the court and may not be decided by the court when ruling on the summary judgment motions. The defendants have offered no authority supporting their contention that the court cannot consider Mr. Call’s testimony because it was not completed. Mr. Call’s deposition was taken over a full two days. The plaintiffs represent that every party had an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Call. It appears from the transcript of Mr. Call’s deposition that Huber Hunt & Nichols, K-Mart, and Zimmer had an opportunity to, and did in fact, cross-examine Mr. Call. The court is unaware of any authority supporting these defendants’ contention that Mr. Call’s testimony should be disregarded. If further examination was needed for summary judgment purposes, Rule 56(f) should have been invoked. Accordingly, the court finds that the defendants’ objections to the use of Mr. Call’s testimony should be overruled. 2. Expert Affidavits Expert testimony is not automatically admissible evidence. See, e.g., Thomas v. FAG Bearings Corp., 846 F.Supp. 1382, 1393 (W.D.Mo.1994), on reconsideration in part on other grounds sub nom., Thomas (Elaine) v. FAG Bearings Corp., 860 F.Supp. 663 (W.D.Mo.1994); Amcast v. Detrex Corp., 779 F.Supp. 1519, 1534 (N.D.Ind.1991) (experts rarely allowed to determine questions of law), aff'd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 2 F.3d 746 (7th Cir.1993), and cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 691, 126 L.Ed.2d 658 (1994); Toro Co. v. Krouse, Kern & Co., 644 F.Supp. 986, 989 (N.D.Ind.1986), aff'd, 827 F.2d 155 (7th Cir.1987). In general, evidence submitted for summary judgment must be admissible at trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) (“affidavits ... shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence”); McFeely v. United States, 700 F.Supp. 414, 418 n. 1 (S.D.Ind.1988). Thus, facts and opinions stated in an expert’s affidavit may be considered only if they would be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Porter v. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc., 791 F.Supp. 1335, 1342 (S.D.Ind.1992), aff'd, 9 F.3d 607 (7th Cir.1993); Toro Co. v. Krouse, Kern & Co., 644 F.Supp. at 988. To be admissible, expert testimony must satisfy Fed.R.Evid. 401; additionally, the expert must be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, Fed.R.Evid. 702; the court must find that scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact at issue, Fed.R.Evid. 702; and the facts or data upon which the expert bases an opinion or inference must be of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field. Fed.R.Evid. 703. If an expert’s opinion is so fundamentally unsupported that it cannot assist the trier of fact, the court should exclude that expert’s opinion. Hurst v. United States, 882 F.2d 306, 311 (8th Cir.1989). Unsupported facts do not provide a sufficient basis from which a reasonable juror could find the expert’s opinion more certain or reasonable. Porter v. Whitehall Laboratories, 791 F.Supp. at 1348-49. Whether an expert’s opinion is supported by an adequate basis is a matter of law for the court to decide. 791 F.Supp. at 1348; Richardson v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 857 F.2d 823, 829 (D.C.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 882, 110 S.Ct. 218, 107 L.Ed.2d 171 (1989). The court must “ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., — U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2795, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). The court should exclude an expert’s opinion that is not supported by a sufficient basis. Hurst v. United States, 882 F.2d at 311. As the Supreme Court enunciated in Daubert: The subject of an expert’s testimony must be “scientific ... knowledge.” The adjective “scientific” implies a grounding in the methods and procedures of science. Similarly, the word “knowledge” connotes more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation. The term “applies to any body of known facts or to any body of ideas inferred from such facts or accepted as truths on good grounds.” — U.S. at -, 113 S.Ct. at 2795 (citation omitted). “Proposed testimony must be supported by appropriate validation — i.e. ‘good grounds’ based on what is known.” Id. As the Seventh Circuit stated: Rule 56(e) ... provides that affidavits supporting and opposing motions for summary judgment must do more than present something that will be admissible in evidence. They shall “set forth facts” and by implication in the case of experts (who are not “fact witnesses”) a process of reasoning beginning from a firm foundation. “It will not do to say that it must all be left to the skill of experts. Expertise is a rational process and a rational process implies expressed reasons for judgment.” An “opinion has significance proportioned to the sources that sustain it.” An expert who supplies nothing but a bottom line supplies nothing of value to the judicial process. Mid-State Fertilizer Co. v. Exchange Nat’l Bank of Chicago, 877 F.2d 1333, 1339 (7th Cir.1989) (citations omitted) ; see also Porter v. Whitehall Laboratories, 791 F.Supp. at 1347-49 (unsupported expert opinions are insufficient to survive summary judgment motion) (collecting cases); State Farm Fire & Cos. Co. v. Miles, 730 F.Supp. 1462, 1472 (S.D.Ind.1990), aff'd, 930 F.2d 25 (7th Cir.1991) (summary judgment cannot be avoided by presenting conclusory testimony of an expert witness). Expert opinions premised upon speculation and conjecture are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact to survive summary judgment. Thomas v. FAG Bearings Corp., 846 F.Supp. 1382, 1393 (W.D.Mo.1994), on reconsideration in part on other grounds sub nom., Thomas (Elaine) v. FAG Bearings Corp. 860 F.Supp. 663 (W.D.Mo.1994). “When basic foundational conditions themselves are conjecturally premised, it then behooves a court to remove the answer from one of admissible opinion to one of excludable speculation.” Id. (citation omitted). The court must, can, and will separate and disregard any legal conclusion opined by the experts from their statements of fact and expert opinion. See, e.g., Pfeil v. Rogers, 757 F.2d 850, 862 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1107, 106 S.Ct. 1513, 89 L.Ed.2d 912 (1986) (legal opinion is not a recitation of fact to which an affiant is competent to testify, and may be disregarded); Zepik v. Ceeco Pool and Supply, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 455, 462 (N.D.Ind.1987) (court may not consider affiant’s statements as to the law or legal conclusions), aff'd in part, rev’d in part sub nom. Zepik v. Tidewater Midwest, Inc., 856 F.2d 936 (7th Cir.1988). a. The Smith Affidavit The plaintiffs offer the Smith affidavit in support of their claim that each defendant disposed of hazardous substances at the Site between 1974 and 1978. The plaintiffs contend that “Smith’s testimony explains what constituents of each defendant’s waste are ‘hazardous substances’ within the meaning of CERCLA and then matches those constituents to the hazardous substances ... [at the Site].” The defendants object to the Smith affidavit primarily on the grounds that Mr. Smith’s opinions lack a sufficient foundation, and that Mr. Smith lacks personal knowledge, or assumes, that the defendants sent hazardous waste to the Site. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants’ objections are founded upon the defendants’ belief that the plaintiffs must prove either (1) that a “specific load of each defendant’s waste containing a specific hazardous substance went to Lakeland”; or (2) that each defendant produced an unvarying waste stream comprised solely of hazardous substances which LDS hauled to Lake-land.” The plaintiffs contend that they need only prove under CERCLA that each defendant’s waste was shipped to the Site, and that hazardous substances similar to those contained in each defendant’s waste were present at the Site at the time of release. The plaintiffs misunderstand what the law requires them to prove to prevail. The plaintiffs bear the burden on two factual issues: (1) whether each defendant’s hazardous waste was disposed of at the Site; and (2) whether the hazardous substances similar to those contained in each defendant’s waste were present at the Site. First, if the plaintiffs do not prove that each defendant’s hazardous waste was disposed of at the Site, the court need not reach the second issue— whether hazardous substances similar to those contained ’ in each defendant’s waste were present at the Site. Second, logic dictates that if the plaintiffs cannot prove (even by inference) what, if any, hazardous substances were in each defendant’s waste, then the plaintiffs cannot prove that hazardous substances similar to those contained in each defendant’s waste were present at the Site. Mr. Smith has no personal knowledge that any defendant disposed of a hazardous substance at the Site and, therefore, bases this crucial assumption on the discovery taken in this cause, particularly the deposition testimony of former LDS owners, drivers, and other employees. See Fed.R.Evid. 703. The testimony upon which Mr. Smith relies must be sufficient to establish that the defendants disposed of a hazardous substance at the Site to provide an adequate foundation for Mr. Smith’s opinion. As discussed below with respect to the individual defendants, the deposition testimony and other evidence is insufficient to prove that each defendant disposed of a hazardous substance at the Site. Therefore, when Mr. Smith’s opinion rests on the assumption that a given defendant disposed of a hazardous substance at the Site, the opinion lacks an essential evidentiary foundation and is inadmissible. Mr. Smith’s conclusion that each defendant is a responsible party under CERCLA is premised upon Mr. Smith’s assumption that each defendant disposed of a hazardous substance at the Site. Thus, Mr. Smith assumes one of the very facts that the defendants contend the plaintiffs cannot prove. As Mr. Smith opined: On the reasonable assumptions set forth in Paragraph 16, above, that at least a portion of each moving Defendants’ waste containing hazardous substances came to the site, and in light of the analyses set forth in Paragraphs 17 and 18 above, my opinion is that each of the moving defendants contributed hazardous substances to the site____ The court agrees that “it is very easy to render an opinion concerning a fact if one assumes that fact to be true for purposes of the opinion. That is exactly what [Mr.] Smith has done in his Affidavit.” Mr. Smith states as facts the ultimate facts which the plaintiffs must prove to prevail. As in Thomas v. FAG Bearings Corp., 846 F.Supp. at 1393-1394, Mr. Smith’s opinions are premised upon assumed hypothetical facts. Furthermore, an expert’s opinion “must be an ‘expert’ opinion (that is, an opinion informed by the witness’ expertise) rather than simply an opinion broached by a purported expert.” United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598, 604 (7th Cir.1991) (citation omitted), opinion amended by 957 F.2d SOI (7th Cir.1992); cf. Mid-State Fertilizer v. Exchange Nat'l Bank of Chicago, 877 F.2d at 1340 (rejecting an economist’s “expert” opinion that drew on inferences from the record rather than any economic expertise). To the extent that Mr. Smith’s opinion draws exclusively on inferences from the record rather than expertise, Mr. Smith’s opinion is inadmissible. Thus, Mr. Smith’s opinion that each of the defendants contributed hazardous substances to the Site is inadmissible. Not all of Mr. Smith’s opinions are inadmissible. As discussed, Mr. Smith made certain assumptions not within his expertise in reaching his opinions, and the defendants are correct that an expert may not assume a fact and then apply his expertise to the assumed fact to produce an opinion. In several instances, however, Mr. Smith did more than that. He based his opinions on his understanding of what various depositions reported, and he may do that under Rule 703. But an expert’s opinion that is without foundation is worth nothing as evidence, and so is irrelevant for purposes of Rule 402 and not reliable for purposes of Rule 702 as construed in Daubert. In the instances in which the record provides no such foundation, Mr. Smith’s opinion adds nothing to the question of whether a defendant disposed of hazardous wastes at the landfill. Finally, as to whether each defendant’s waste contained hazardous substances, Mr. Smith opines solely with respect to the hazardous constituents of a generic class or type of waste, e.g., flashlight batteries or paint, without limiting his opinion to the particular brands or products actually carried by the defendants. Mr. Smith does not state that all classes or types of given products contain hazardous constituents. Mr. Smith does not state that the hazardous substances contained in the defendants’ inert solid waste allegedly hauled to the Site, such as vinyl flooring or roofing materials, would be released under normal landfill conditions. If a chemical reaction is required to cause such waste, not otherwise listed as a hazardous substance, to generate a hazardous substance, then the plaintiffs must establish the likelihood of such a reaction. See, e.g., B.F. Goodrich v. Murtha, 840 F.Supp. 180 (D.Conn.1993) (mere presence of a hazardous substance in a constituent of a product does not render that product a hazardous substance); United States v. New Castle County, 769 F.Supp. 591 (D.Del.1991); United States v. Serafini, 750 F.Supp. 168 (M.D.Pa.1990) (concluding that an inert solid not itself a listed hazardous substance, but containing a hazardous substance, was not a hazardous substance). b. The Tatum Affidavit The plaintiffs rely on John Tatum’s affidavit to estimate the approximate volume of waste contributed by each defendant to the Site from May 1974 through August 1978, compiled in a “waste-in” database. Mr. Tatum relied on LDS records and deposition testimony in compiling his waste-in database. As the plaintiffs aptly remark, “Mr. Tatum’s database simply confirms the eyewitness testimony of owners, drivers, and defendants themselves that some of each defendant’s waste went to Lakeland.” Waste is not the same as hazardous waste, however, and Mr. Tatum does not offer any opinion that some of each defendant’s hazardous waste went to Lakeland. Mr. Tatum uses a “mass balancing” technique to determine that while David Lindsay operated LDS, 77% of the “solid waste” hauled by LDS was disposed of at the Site, and that while Mr. Shambaugh operated LDS, 36% of the solid waste was disposed of at the Site. Mr. Tatum acknowledged that, apart from the tickets issued by LDS when it operated the Site as a county landfill, LDS kept no records of the specific loads disposed of at the Site Mr. Tatum then speculates that if 77% and 36% of the aggregate solid waste hauled during the respective eras was disposed of at the Site, then 77% and 36% of each defendant’s waste was disposed of at the Site for the respective time period. The defendants objected to Mr. Tatum’s statement that adjustments in his calculations were based on a defendant’s distance from the Site and deposition testimony regarding LDS’s practices. The defendants contend that Exhibit C to Mr. Tatum’s affidavit does not support the allegation that such adjustments were made, and therefore, Mr. Tatum did no more than assume that a defendant’s waste was disposed of at the Site. The defendants are correct. Mr. Tatum calculated the volume of each defendant’s waste hauled by LDS while Mr. Lindsay operated LDS and while Mr. Shambaugh operated LDS and simply multiplied those volumes by 77% and 36%, respectively. Mr. Tatum then added the two figures to obtain the approximate total volume of each defendant’s waste disposed of at the Site. It appears that Mr. Tatum made no adjustments for distance, the form of each defendant’s waste, or deposition testimony of LDS personnel. Mr. Tatum discounted the volume of waste hauled by LDS by the same factor regardless of the defendant’s location. Mr. Tatum’s calculation of approximate waste volume is often contrary to deposition testimony. For example, the 36% figure is not supported by the deposition testimony relied on by the plaintiffs establishing that 10% of Liberty’s waste would have been disposed of at the Site. Mr. Tatum assumes that any LDS customer’s waste had an equal probability of being in the last load of the day when the truck returned to the Site as being in the truck as it went from one route to another past the Site Mr. Tatum provides no factual basis for this assumption, and when viewed in the context of deposition testimony, the assumption is not well-founded. This assumption underlies Mr. Tatum’s application of the mass balancing technique; thus, the lack of a factual basis for the assumption renders the application of the mass balancing technique highly questionable. Mr. Tatum’s mass balancing technique is based on conjecture and broad assumptions made without a supporting factual basis. That LDS may have disposed of 77% and 36% of all customer waste at the Site during the respective eras does not prove, nor create an inference, that LDS disposed of 77% and 36% of any defendant’s waste. Moreover, Mr. Tatum fails to account for the increased number of LDS customers under Mr. Shambaugh’s ownership. For these reasons, the court agrees with the defendants that Mr. Tatum’s opinion is insufficiently reliable to be admissible under Daubert. Ill INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS A. American Standard, Inc. Peabody Modernfold, a division of American Standard, Inc. (“ASI”), was located in North Manchester, Indiana. John Rish, Peabody’s plant manager from 1972 to 1980, was responsible for Peabody’s waste handling practices and off-site disposal contracts. Peabody generated three types of waste: (1) liquid waste, which was disposed under contract with Enviro-Chem from Indianapolis; (2) scrap metal, which was sold to scrap metal companies; and (3) trash, consisting of solid waste generated by Peabody’s business operations. Beginning around 1975, Peabody began using two waste hauling companies— LDS and Yogie Disposal Service (‘Yogie”)— to dispose of its trash. LDS and Yogie both provided compactor truck services; LDS provided all roll-off services. Mr. Rish stated that he did not know where LDS took the Peabody’s roll-off trash or waste. ASI contends the plaintiffs cannot prove that ASI’s former Peabody Division disposed of hazardous substances at the Site. ASI contends, first, that the uncontradicted testimony of LDS’s owners and drivers is that they have no recollection of hauling any of Peabody’s general trash in compactor trucks to the Site; and second, that the undisputed testimony of Paul Phillipy (the only driver who recalls hauling Peabody’s trash to the Site) is that Peabody’s roll-offs contained only wood and other large materials, but no cans, buckets, paint, liquids or sludges. That ASI disposed of some type of waste at the Site is undisputed. ASI admits that LDS transported ASI’s roll-off wastes, but denies that the roll-off wastes contained hazardous substances. Former LDS driver Paul Phillipy recalled that Peabody generally used one roll-off per week, and that he disposed of the roll-off wastes from Peabody at the Site. According to Mr. Phillipy, the roll-offs contained the “bigger, larger stuff’ and the “wood and stuff that was too large.” Mr. Phillipy further testified that during the time period that he hauled roll-offs from Peabody, Peabody had daily compactor truck service. No other LDS driver recalled hauling waste from Peabody to the Site. Former Peabody employee John Rish testified that Peabody’s general production wastes generated throughout the plant included vinyl, oil and oil filters, brake fluid, transmission fluid, lacquer, used paint filters, five-gallon buckets containing solvent based paint, paint scrapings, adhesives, and alkaline cleaners. The plaintiffs’ expert, James Smith, established that such substances would contain such hazardous substances as BTEX compounds, PAHs, wear metals, plasticizers, and metal hydroxides, which were detected in the sampling of the Site. Mr. Rish further testified that Peabody disposed of its general production wastes in its roll-off waste hauled by LDS; but, as noted during oral argument, Mr. Rish also testified that Peabody used roll-offs for its general production wastes only for a few months during 1977 or 1978 when compactor truck services were unavailable. Mr. Phillipy testified that compactor truck services were available throughout the time he hauled Peabody’s roll-offs. Therefore, Mr. Rish’s testimony that Peabody briefly used roll-offs for general production waste does not contradict Mr. Phillipjfs testimony that Peabody’s roll-offs contained the “bigger, larger stuff’ and “wood and stuff that was too large.” The plaintiffs have not presented any evidence that any roll-off wastes containing hazardous substances were disposed of at the Site. The plaintiffs contend that ASI omits two other services LDS provided to Peabody that would support a finding that Peabody wastes containing hazardous substances were disposed of at the Site. The plaintiffs first allege that in December 1974, LDS transported one load of waste from Peabody containing at least 1,743 full aerosol spray paint cans. In support of this allegation, the plaintiffs rely on the testimony of former LDS owner David Lindsay, a Peabody shipping order, and Mr. Rish’s testimony. Mr. Lindsay testified, based on an LDS invoice, that the aerosol spray paint cans were “hauled to my landfill.” Mr. Lindsay added, however, “there is a possibility that it [the aerosol spray paint cans] could have got to the one ... in Syracuse,” and that he could not tell where the aerosol cans were hauled based on the invoice. Mr. Lindsay could not testify for certain whether the aerosol cans were taken to the Site. The plaintiffs also rely on a Peabody shipping order, allegedly documenting the transaction indicating a delivery address of “Clay-pool Indiana”, where the landfill was located. But, as ASI points out, the shipping order lists no disposal site. Mr. Lindsay testified that the reference on Peabody’s shipping order to “Claypool, Indiana” as the delivery address would not require LDS to haul the aerosol cans to the Site. Mr. Rish testified that the aerosol cans were disposed of at a landfill for which Steve Shambaugh had state approved licensing. When the aerosol cans were hauled in 1974, Mr. Shambaugh was not affiliated with LDS or the Site; rather, he operated another waste hauling company, Dunn & Shambaugh, and was not affiliated with LDS or Lakeland until 1976. Mr. Rish did not know where the particular landfill affiliated with Mr. Shambaugh was located. He knew only that the landfill was located north of Peabody. Mr. Rish believed that the landfill was the “Four Square” landfill, or the “Four Counties” landfill in Fulton County. The plaintiffs also allege that LDS provided Peabody with packer truck service from July 1976 until the Site closed in September 1978, which was during the time Mr. Shambaugh owned LDS. Mr. Lindsay’s testimony that compactor trucks servicing North Manchester would use the Site, as relied on by the plaintiffs, is irrelevant to this issue; Peabody did not use LDS for compactor truck service while Mr. Lindsay owned and operated LDS. Mr. Phillipy testified that all compactor truck waste from Peabody was disposed at Spring Valley. Although Mr. Phillipy testified that waste from Manchester went to Lakeland when a compactor truck was serviced, he could not say that when a compactor truck carrying waste from Manchester went to Lakeland it was carrying waste from Peabody. Thus, the plaintiffs have presented no evidence that even one compactor truck serviced at the Site contained Peabody waste. The plaintiffs have not come forward with material facts establishing a genuine issue for trial with respect to the aerosol spray paint cans, compactor truck services, or roll-off wastes. Therefore, the plaintiffs have failed to present evidence sufficient to withstand ASI’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether ASI is liable as a CERCLA generator who disposed of hazardous substances at the Site. Accordingly, ASI’s motion for summary judgment should be granted. B. City of Warsaw The City of Warsaw, Indiana (