as well as U.S. Geological Survey data concerning the underground bedrock structure and fractures, that a hydraulic interconnection exists between the plumes. Although Durham’s expert disagreed with this conclusion, his opinion was based in part on the CTDEP’s and the EPA’s historical division of the Site, which was a division of convenience and was not supported by scientific evidence. The other evidence is not sufficiently persuasive for the Court to conclude that the plumes are divisible for liability purposes. 30. Based on the experts’ testimony and reports, as well as the EPA reports, the Court concludes that Durham has failed to carry its difficult burden of proving that there were separate and distinct plumes of gr Am. Premier Underwriters, Inc., 240 F.3d 534, 549 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). 36. Equitable factors that may be considered
recognizing that the question of whether the interest of justice is served by the transfer of a juvenile for adult prosecution is a decision within the broad discretion of the district court holding that the allocation of response costs under  113f is an equitable determination based on the district courts discretionary selection of the appropriate equitable factors in a given case holding that district courts discretion is extremely broad holding that the apportionment of cercla liability under  113f among various responsible parties is an equitable undertaking within the broad discretion of the district court recognizing the district courts broad discretion to utilize civil procedures in a manner that is useful and equitable to the parties