EPA v. EXCEL CORPORATION, ET AL

Case summary

THE MAIN STREET WELL FIELD (MSWF) IN ELKHART, INDIANA SUPPLIES APPROX.80% OF THE CITY'S DRINKING WATER NEEDS. IN 1981, MSWF WAS SAMPLED ASPART OF USEPA'S NATIONAL GROUND WATER SUPPLY SURVEY. THE SAMPLINGRESULTS INDICATED THAT THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE WELL FIELD WASCONTAMINATED WITH TRICHLOROETHENE (TCE), 1,2,-DICHLOROETHENE (1,2,-DCE),1,1,1,TRICHLOROETHANE (TCA), 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE (DCA). USEPA RESPONDEDBY PROPOSING MSWF FOR INCLUSION ON THE NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST TO WHICHIT WAS ADDED IN 9/83. - THE CITY OF ELKHART RESPONDED BY SHUTTING DOWN THE EASTERN PRODUCTIONWELLS AND INSTALLING INTERCEPTOR WELLS TO BLOCK FURTHER MIGRATION OF THECONTAMINANT PLUME INTO THE WELL FIELD. AS A RESULT, TCE LEVELS DROPPEDSUBSTANTIALLY. HOWEVER, FROM 1983 TO 1985, TCE LEVELS ON THE WESTERNSIDE OF THE WELL FIELD BEGAN TO INCREASE. USEPA THEN SUSPECTED THAT ASEPARATE PLUME HAD BEEN DRAWN INTO THE WELL FIELD FROM THE WEST. - IN 4/85, USEPA COMMENCED A REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION & PHASED FEASIBILITYSTUDY (RI/PFS) FOR MSWF. DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF THE SITE, RESPONSEACTIVITIES WERE DIVIDED INTO OPERABLE UNITS. THE FIRST OPERABLE UNITSECURED THE WATER SUPPLY FOR THE CITY. IN 8/85, USEPA ISSUED A RODWHICH SELECTED AIR STRIPPING TREATMENT AS THE REMEDY FOR THECONTAMINATED WATER SUPPLY. THE SECOND OPERABLE UNIT, CURENTLY BEINGIMPLEMENTED, ADDRESSES SOURCE AND PLUME CONTROL TO PREVENT FURTHERCONTAMINATION OF THE GROUND WATER BENEATH AND UPGRADIENT OF THE WELLFIELD. THE ROD FOR OPERABLE UNIT 2 WAS ISSUED BY USEPA ON 3/29/91. - A UNILATERAL ADM ORDER WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED TO NINE PRP'S, PURSUANTTO SECTION 106(A) OF CERCLA, REQUIRING THEM TO IMPLEMENT THE SECOND ROD.CURRENTLY, THE RESPONDENTS TO THE ORDER ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THEORDER. - THIS REFERRAL SEEKS THE FILING OF A DISTRICT COURT COST RECOVERY ACTION,PURSUANT TO SECTION 107(A) OF CERCLA, 42 USC SECTION 9607(A), FORUSEPA'S COSTS INCURRED IN RESPONDING TO RELEASES AT MSWF. - REGION V BELIEVES THAT THIS MATTER IS APPROPRIATE FOR ENFORCEMENTBECAUSE OVER $7,000,000 HAS BEEN EXPENDED AND AS YET, HAS NOT BEENREIMBURSED TO THE SUPERFUND. ADDITIONALLY, ELKHART, IN, HAS BEEN, ANDCONTINUES TO BE,

Defendants (10)

• ADAMS & WESTLAKE, LTDNamed in complaintNamed in settlement
• BAYER CORPORATIONNamed in complaintNamed in settlement
• BEALE, JOSEPHNamed in complaint
• DETREX CORPORATIONNamed in complaintNamed in settlement
• DURAKOOL, INC.Named in complaint
• ELKART PRODUCTS CORPORATIONNamed in complaintNamed in settlement
• EXCEL CORPORATIONNamed in complaintNamed in settlement
• JSB CORPORATION D/B/A ADLAKE ENTERPRISENamed in complaint
• MILES, INC.Named in complaint
• NIBCO, INC.Named in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• MAIN STREET WELL

  921 N MAIN ST, ELKHART, IN, 46516

  Registry ID: 110000573317

Statutes cited

• CERCLA 107A — Cost Recovery

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• EXCEL CORPORATIONentered 1998-06-09

  Primary law: CERCLA

Timeline (5 milestones)

• 1985-04-02Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 1993-02-17Referred To Dept Of Justice
• 1993-06-19Complaint Filed With Court
• 1996-08-13Final Order Lodged
• 1998-06-09Final Order Entered