## Facts

- Lansford-Coaldale Joint Water Authority operated groundwater supply wells in Carbon County, Pennsylvania, adjacent to a former lead-smelting site later owned by Tonolli Pennsylvania.
- After learning of hazardous-substance releases at the site and a hazardous-waste permit application, the Authority commissioned a study to assess potential impacts on its wells.
- The Authority sued under CERCLA § 107, alleging that releases from the site posed a threat of future contamination to its water supply and seeking response costs.
- The claimed response costs included (1) prospective costs to secure an alternative water supply or treat existing water based on an alleged future threat and (2) monitoring and evaluation costs incurred to assess potential contamination.
- Tonolli Pennsylvania entered bankruptcy and was dismissed; the case proceeded against Tonolli Canada, Ltd. and IFIM International B.V.
- After a bench trial, the district court issued oral findings shortly after trial, adopting many defense-proposed findings, and concluded the sites were hydrogeologically separated so the releases posed no threat to the Authority’s wells.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) by issuing oral findings soon after trial and adopting many proposed findings verbatim.
2. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding hydrogeologic separation between the smelting site and the Authority’s wells, resulting in no threat of future contamination.
3. Whether CERCLA permits recovery of alternative-supply or treatment costs based on an alleged threat of future contamination when the factfinder finds no such threat.
4. Whether monitoring and evaluation expenses are recoverable CERCLA response costs even if the plaintiff cannot prove a compensable threat warranting major remedial measures.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit held Rule 52(a) was satisfied because the rule permits oral findings and verbatim adoption does not, by itself, invalidate findings otherwise reviewable for clear error.
- The court affirmed the district court’s finding of hydrogeologic separation and lack of threat of contamination as not clearly erroneous.
- The court affirmed denial of costs associated with obtaining an alternative water supply or treating the existing supply because the factual predicate (a real threat) was not proven.
- The court vacated the denial of monitoring and evaluation costs and remanded for determination whether those expenditures qualify as recoverable CERCLA response costs.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 52(a) authorizes oral findings in bench trials; the timing of findings is not reversible error absent inadequate detail or lack of record support.
- Findings adopted verbatim from a party’s proposal are treated as the court’s findings and are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.
- Appellate courts defer to trial-court factfinding, including technical determinations based on expert testimony, unless clearly erroneous.
- Under CERCLA § 107(a), recovery of substantial remedial costs (e.g., alternative supply or treatment) requires an evidence-based threat of contamination attributable to the defendant.
- Monitoring, assessment, and evaluation may constitute CERCLA “response” actions; such costs may be recoverable if they are necessary and consistent with the National Contingency Plan, even when major remediation is unwarranted.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s factfinding that releases from the neighboring smelting site posed no threat to the Authority’s wells and therefore upheld the denial of alternative-supply and treatment costs, but it vacated and remanded for further consideration of whether the Authority’s monitoring and evaluation expenses were necessary and NCP-consistent response costs recoverable under CERCLA.


Lansford-Coaldale Joint Water Authority v. Tonolli Corp., 4 F.3d 1209 (3d Cir. 1993)