EPA v. THOMAS SOLVENT CO.

Case summary

THE VERONA WELL FIELD IS THE SOLE SOURCE WATER FOR 35,000 RESIDENTS OF BATTLE CREEK, AS WELL AS FOR SEVERAL MAJOR FOOD PRODUCING INDUSTRIES IN THE AREA. 16 OF THE 31 WELLS IN THE FIELD ARE NO LONGER IN PRODUCTION BECAUSE OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION. OTHER MUNICIPAL WELLS COULD BE AFFECTED IF T THE CONTAMINANTS SPREAD HORIZONTALLY. IN SEPT 1981, HYDRO- CARBONS WERE DETECTED IN THE TAP WATER IN THE HOMES OF BATTLE CREEK RESIDENTS. SAMPLING IN THE WELL FIELD INDICAT- ED CONTAMINATION IN A THIRD OF THE WELLS. SAMPLING NEAR THE FIELD ALSO INDICATED HIGH LEVELS OF CONTAMINATION IN PRIVATE WELLS. A HYDROGEOLOGIC STUDY WAS COMPLETED BY E&E IN APRIL OF 1982 TO IDENTIFY THE SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION. USGS CON- TRACTED WITH THE CITY TO COMPLETE A COMPUTER-GENERATED GROUNDWATER MODEL OF THE AREA AND INSTALLED 17 MONITORING WELLS FOR THIS. NATURE OF 9/27/85 REFERRAL THIS IS A FACTUALY COMPLEX SITUATION INVOLVING A PARENT COMPANY AND THREE SPINOFF CORPORATIONS. THE PARENT COM- PANY IS THOMAS SOLVENT COMPAN, INCORPORATED (TSC). TSC IS THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF A SITE LOCATED IN BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN, FROM WHICH RELEASES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE TO THE ENVIRONMENT HAVE OCCURRED. THESE RELEASES REPRESENT THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES THAT HAVE CONTAMI- NATED THE VERONA WELL FIELD, A SITE LISTED ON THE NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST. THE GOVERNMENT HAS EXPENDED $3.3 MILLION FOR VARIOUS INITIAL REMEDIAL MEASURES AND OTHER CLEANUP EFFORTS AT THE SITE. ADDITIONAL $1.0 MILLION HAS BEEN OBLIGATED, BUT NOT YET EXPENDED. TSC OPERATED THE BATTLE CREEK SITE FROM APPROXIMATELY 1956 UNTIL APRIL 1984, WHEN TSC FILED A VOLUNTARY PETITION IN THE BANKRUPTCY, COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. DURING THAT OPERATION, GREAT QUANTITIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES WERE SPILLED ONTO THE GROUND AND OTHER- WISE RELEASED TO THE ENVIRONMENT. THESE MATERIALS HAVE MIGRANTED THROUGH THE GROUNDWATER AND HAVE BEGUN TO IMPACT THE VERONA WELL FIELD, THE SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER FOR APPROXIMATELY 35,000 PEOPLE FROM THE BATTLE CREEK COMMUNITY. THE GOVERNMENT HAS SPENT CONSIDERABLE AMOUNTS OF MONEY UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF CERCLA, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING A TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR THE GROUNDWATER PUMPED FROM A SET OF BARRIER WELLS THAT INTERCEPT THE CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER PLUME BEFORE IT REACHES DRINKING WATER SUPPLY WELLS. IN ADDITION, SOME OF THE FEDERAL EXPENDITURES WENT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CAPACITY IN THE VERONA WELL FIELD, AND AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER FOR THE RESIDENTS MOST AFFECTED BY THE CONTAMINATION. CAUSE OF ACTION THE THOMAS SOLVENT COMPANY, INC., IS CLEARLY ONE OF THE POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES IN THIS MATTER, BEING THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF THE BATTLE CREEK FACILITY. HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT IS NOW BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, THERE IS LITTLE PROSPECT THAT ANY SUBSTANTIAL RECOVERY CAN BE HAD FROM TSC. IN FACT, THE ENTIRE ESTATE OF THE DEBTOR, TSC, IS ESTIMATED TO BE LESS THAN $400,000. AS NOTED ABOVE, TSC HAS APPARENTLY ATTEMPTED TO LIMIT THE EXTENT OF ITS LIABILITY BY SPINNING OFF ITS FORMER BRANCH OFFICES INTO SEPARATE CORPORATIONS. THESE CORPORA- TIONS ARE NOT FORMALLY INVOLVED IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING CEEDING, SO THERE IS NO AUTOMATIC STAY PROHIBITION AGAINST AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION DIRECTED AT THE SPINOFF CORPORATIONS. THIS LITIGATION REPORT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE UNITED STATES CAN MAKE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF THE PRIMA FACIE ELEMENTS OF A CERCLA COST RECOVERY CASE WITH RESPECT TO THE THREE SPINOFF CORPORATIONS. MR. RICHARD E. THOMAS IS THE P

Defendants (9)

• GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANYNamed in complaintNamed in settlement
• THOMAS DEVELOPMENT, INC.Named in complaintNamed in settlement
• THOMAS SOLVENTNamed in complaintNamed in settlement
• THOMAS SOLVENT CO, OF DETROIT, INC.Named in complaintNamed in settlement
• THOMAS SOLVENT CO, OF FORT WAYNE, INC.Named in complaintNamed in settlement
• THOMAS SOLVENT CO, OF MUSKEGON, INC.Named in complaintNamed in settlement
• THOMAS, RICHARD E.Named in complaintNamed in settlement
• TSC TRANSPORTATION COMPANYNamed in complaintNamed in settlement
• DEFENDANTS W/SETTLEMENT 1-SETTLEMENT 2Named in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (9)

• VERONA PUMPING STATION

  250 BRIGDEN DRIVE, BATTLE CREEK, MI, 49017

  Registry ID: 110006040989

• VERONA PUMPING STATION

  250 BRIGDEN DRIVE, BATTLE CREEK, MI, 49017

  Registry ID: 110006040989

• VERONA PUMPING STATION

  250 BRIGDEN DRIVE, BATTLE CREEK, MI, 49017

  Registry ID: 110006040989

• VERONA PUMPING STATION

  250 BRIGDEN DRIVE, BATTLE CREEK, MI, 49017

  Registry ID: 110006040989

• VERONA PUMPING STATION

  250 BRIGDEN DRIVE, BATTLE CREEK, MI, 49017

  Registry ID: 110006040989

• VERONA PUMPING STATION

  250 BRIGDEN DRIVE, BATTLE CREEK, MI, 49017

  Registry ID: 110006040989

• VERONA PUMPING STATION

  250 BRIGDEN DRIVE, BATTLE CREEK, MI, 49017

  Registry ID: 110006040989

• VERONA PUMPING STATION

  250 BRIGDEN DRIVE, BATTLE CREEK, MI, 49017

  Registry ID: 110006040989

• VERONA PUMPING STATION

  250 BRIGDEN DRIVE, BATTLE CREEK, MI, 49017

  Registry ID: 110006040989

Statutes cited

• CERCLA 104A — CERCLA 104(a)
• CERCLA 107A — Cost Recovery
• CERCLA 107 — Superfund

Enforcement conclusions (2)

• THOMAS SOLVENT CO/GENERAL FOODentered 1991-11-15

  Primary law: CERCLA

• THOMAS SOLVENT CO.-VERONA WELLentered 1989-06-05

  Primary law: CERCLA

Timeline (8 milestones)

• 1985-09-27Referred To Headquarters
• 1985-11-01Referred To Dept Of Justice
• 1986-05-26Referred TO U.S. Attorney
• 1986-05-28Complaint Filed With Court
• 1991-11-15Final Order Lodged
• 1991-11-15Final Order Entered
• 1991-11-15Concluded
• 1991-11-15Enforcement Action Closed