Little Hocking Water Ass'n v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
91 F. Supp. 3d 940
S.D. Ohio2015Background
- Little Hocking Water Association (public water provider) sues DuPont for C8/PFC contamination of its 45‑acre wellfield downstream of DuPont’s Washington Works; DuPont admits releasing C8 historically.
- C8 is persistent; EPA AOCs (2006, 2009) required DuPont to provide GAC filtration to Little Hocking and set action levels (.5 then .4 ppb); GAC currently reduces drinking water C8 to nondetect.
- DuPont documents show awareness of C8 persistence and internal concern about reductions beginning in the 1980s, but substantial releases continued through the 1990s.
- Disputed migration pathways: DuPont asserts atmospheric deposition only; Little Hocking’s experts also identify a river/groundwater pathway (contaminated soil → Ohio River → induced infiltration into wells; contaminated sediment as ongoing source).
- Procedural posture: Cross‑motions for summary judgment. Court: grants DuPont summary judgment on Counts V (ultrahazardous), VII (unjust enrichment), VIII (declaratory indemnity); denies DuPont summary judgment on RCRA ISE (Count I), nuisance and negligence (II & III), trespass (IV), and conversion (VI); grants Little Hocking summary judgment on trespass and conversion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RCRA ISE — standing & notice | Little Hocking: contamination of its property and business gives Article III standing; provided statutory notice for ISE claim | DuPont: lacks standing (GAC abates harm); faulty notice; Baker precludes relief | Court: Plaintiff has standing; notice adequate for §6972(a)(1)(B); Baker/AOC do not bar RCRA citizen suit here |
| RCRA ISE — "solid waste/disposal" and pathways (air vs water) | C8 deposited by air and also reaches wellfield via river/groundwater; particulate air fallout that soils/groundwater is "disposal" | DuPont: point‑source/CWA exclusions and emissions‑only arguments mean no RCRA solid waste/disposal | Court: factual disputes on river pathway remain; ruled air particulate deposition that contaminates soil/groundwater can constitute RCRA "disposal"; some storm/runoff/seeps may be non‑point and within RCRA’s reach |
| RCRA ISE — imminence and substantial endangerment | Little Hocking: environmental endangerment exists (ecotoxicology, persistence, food‑web concerns); seeks cleanup/investigation of sources | DuPont: GAC has removed drinking‑water exposure so no imminent substantial endangerment to health; environment claims speculative | Court: human‑health remedies tied to GAC operation denied (no further relief required now); but genuine issues remain as to environmental endangerment — summary judgment denied on Count I |
| Common‑law nuisance & negligence | Little Hocking: C8 contamination foreseeably damaged the wellfield, reduced use, disrupted expansion and operations | DuPont: facility operations were permitted; no distinct injury beyond public; lack of foreseeability and physical harm | Court: absolute nuisance/ultrahazardous claims barred for regulated facility, but qualified nuisance/ negligence survive (merges with nuisance); genuine issues of foreseeability and damages preclude summary judgment |
| Trespass (indirect particulate/groundwater) | Little Hocking: airborne deposition and contaminated groundwater invaded property and interfered with possession and use | DuPont: indirect trespass requires substantial interference/damage; mere detection insufficient | Held: Court applies Ohio precedent requiring actual/substantial interference for indirect trespass but finds material facts show substantial interference with water resource; grants Little Hocking summary judgment on trespass |
| Conversion of groundwater | Little Hocking: DuPont’s contamination and control/interference with groundwater use constitutes conversion | DuPont: conversion of real property impermissible; 30(b)(6) deposition evidence inconsistent | Held: Court finds interference with use of groundwater and denies DuPont summary judgment; grants Little Hocking summary judgment on conversion |
| Unjust enrichment & declaratory indemnity | Little Hocking: alternatively seeks restitution for DuPont’s use of property as de facto dump and indemnity for future costs | DuPont: unjust enrichment not proper to compensate tort losses; indemnity claim speculative (no present threat of suit) | Held: unjust enrichment dismissed (actual damages established; not appropriate alternative); declaratory indemnity dismissed for lack of justiciable controversy |
Key Cases Cited
- Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 479 (1996) (RCRA citizen‑suit framework and limits on remedial purpose)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing in environmental suits focuses on plaintiff’s injury)
- Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 386 F.3d 993 (11th Cir. 2004) (elements for RCRA imminent and substantial endangerment claim)
- Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 399 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2005) (RCRA ISE liability for environmental contamination; remedial scope)
- Maine People’s Alliance & Natural Res. Def. Council v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 471 F.3d 277 (1st Cir. 2006) (application of RCRA ISE to water/sediment contamination)
- Sims Bros. Constr. Co. v. 277 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 2001) (interpretation of "solid waste" for gaseous materials)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Center for Cmty. Action & Envtl. Justice, 764 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2014) (narrow reading of RCRA "disposal" for airborne emissions)
- Chance v. BP Chem. Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 17, 670 N.E.2d 985 (1996) (Ohio law on indirect subsurface invasions and the need to show interference with use)
- Reserve Mining Co. v. EPA, 514 F.2d 492 (8th Cir. 1975) (definition of "substantial" endangerment under environmental statutes)