Creating the Right Solutions Together

Example Projects

• Litigation Support & Expert Witness Testimony,
  Confidential Client

  HRP’s client (the defendant) owned a shopping plaza in central Connecticut where a former dry cleaning operation discharged contaminants to the soil and ground water of the site in the mid to late 1980s. The plaintiff owned a nearby community water system water supply well that became contaminated with chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

  The plaintiff sued the owner of the plaza in Federal Superior Court in Hartford, Connecticut, under CERCLA Section 107 to recover response costs related to: 1) testing and treating the contaminated ground water, and 2) site investigations to determine the cause of the contamination.

  HRP’s expert performed various functions related to litigation support in preparation for the trial, including the following tasks:

  • review of voluminous investigation reports and documentation prepared by both HRP and the plaintiff’s expert regarding the nature, source, extent, degree and migration of ground water contamination present at the two sites;

  • preparation for and participation in depositions, including extensive assistance with the deposition of the opposing side’s expert;

  • the design and preparation of visual aids depicting site conditions, contaminant pathways, hydrogeological relationships, etc. used prior to and during the trial;

  • extensive coordination and planning with the defendant’s counsel regarding trial strategy, technical analysis of complex hydrogeologic concepts, critical analysis of the opposing side’s technical position regarding the interpretation of the data; and

  • strong client advocacy during the entire pre-trial preparation phase of the lawsuit.

  During trial, HRP’s expert participate in all phases, including:
  

  1. preparation and presentation of expert witness testimony;

  2. critical evaluation and discussions regarding cross examination of opposing side’s expert;

  3. technical discussions amongst attorneys and judge;

  4. courtroom presentation, explanation and response to inquiry for visual aids; and

  5. effective performance under cross-examination.

  In the decision, the U.S. Superior Court Judge found “the court is persuaded by the credible testimony of the defendant’s expert, Mr. Howard Hurd (HRP Associates, Inc.), that the contamination of the (public well) site was not caused by dry cleaning fluids from (the shopping) plaza. His testimony was supported by site surveys, geological research, and data obtained from extensive field studies of test wells and monitoring wells which clearly gave credence to his opinion.

  "The court is not persuaded by the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, Mr. (expert), that the contamination of the (public well) site was caused by dry cleaning fluids from (the shopping) plaza. Contrary to the testimony of Mr. Hurd, Mr. (expert’s) testimony was speculative and unsupported by credible evidence.”
  

   

• Litigation Support & Expert Witness Testimony,
  Superfund Site, Plant City, FL

  HRP Associates, Inc. was retained to serve as the principal expert witness for a legal defense team who represent nine insurance companies being sued by the historical site owners for $24 million dollars in remediation costs associated with an EPA directed Superfund cleanup. The plaintiff asserts that contamination on site was the direct result of sudden and accidental loses caused by large flooding events in 1979 and 1982, which were covered by their general liability policies held during those time periods. HRP was retained by the defense group to review the case file (100,000+ pages), prepare expert opinions regarding the contamination, develop counter arguments to the plaintiff’s expert witnesses and to participate in administration of depositions.

  Analysis included manipulation of decades of precipitation data, chemical evaluation of dissolved lead fate and transport in ground water, sediment and eolian transport of lead contaminated sediments, and development of flooding models. The results of all analysis showed that the releases were not sudden and that many alternative, plausible explanations related to site operations were the source of site contamination. 

  Following technical concessions made by the plaintiff’s expert witnesses in depositions and in light of HRP’s analysis, the perceived, potential liability of the defense group has been reduced from $24 million to approximately $350,000. Currently the legal team is preparing motions for summary judgment.

• Expert Witness Testimony, Stockholm, Sweden

  HRP Associates, Inc. provided expert witness testimony in Stockholm, Sweden on the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations. HRP’s testimony, which was presented at a tribunal arbitration hearing, addressed the RCRA Closure and Post-Closure regulations for surface impoundments.

  During the early 1990s, HRP completed RCRA Closure and Post-Closure activities at the corporation’s Bethel, CT facility. Two (2) surface impoundments were used from 1960 to 1988 at the Bethel facility for the settling of neutralized acid pickling wastewaters, cooling wastewater, and non-contact cooling water. Degreasing solvents, tetrachlorethylene and trichloroethylene, were also released to the lagoons.

  Listed below are the key closure and post-closure activities completed by HRP. All activities were performed in accordance with the RCRA regulations contained in 40 CFR Parts 265.111 through 265.115 and State of Connecticut Hazardous Waste Regulations Section 22a-449(c)-105. 
  

  • Chemical characterization of the settling lagoons.

  • Pressure testing of the underground effluent pipeline.

  • Delineation of the surrounding wetlands.

  • Design, installation, and sampling of the ground water monitoring system.

  • Design and installation of a ground water treatment system.

  • Excavation and removal of sludge and soil identified to be hazardous waste.

  • Excavation and removal of contaminated soil (non-hazardous waste) to the seasonal high ground water table.

  • Design and installation of the final cover for the former settling lagoons.

The tribunal arbitration hearing was held to determine which company (former owner or current owner – both Swedish companies) was responsible for the closure and post-closure costs. The hearing panel ruled that HRP’s client (the current owner) was not responsible for these costs. This favorable ruling was largely based on the expert testimony provided by HRP Associates.

Copyright © 2003
Contact HRP Associates, Inc.