EPA v. CLARE WATER SUPPLY

Case summary

THIS IS A COST RECOVERY REFERRAL FOR PRIMARILY OVERSIGHT COSTS FOR THE SITE. SOME OF THE PRPS HAD CONDUCTED AN RI/FS UNDER A CONSENT ORDER AND HAD COMPLIED WITH AN INTERIM ACTION SECTION 106 UNILATERAL ORDER. NEGOTIATIONS FOR AN RD/RA CONSENT DECREE WERE UNSUCCESSFUL. A SECOND SECTION 106 ORDER WAS ISSUED. A GROUP OF THE PRPS ARE CARRYING OUT THE WORK UNDER THE SECOND ORDER. THE GROUP HAS REFUSED TO REIMBURSE U.S. EPA'S OVERSIGHT COSTS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ORDER AND TWO NON-GROUP PRPS HAVE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER IN ANY FASHION. THE REFERRAL ALSO SEEKS DAMAGES UNDER SECTION 106(B). THE CONSENT DECREE MEMORIALIZES A SETTLEMENT WITH THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREBY MDOT WILL REIMBURSE THE UNITED STATES $150,000 OF ITS PAST RESPONSE COSTS RELATED TO THE CLARE WATER SUPPLY SITE. THE CLARE WATER SUPPLY NPL SITE INVOLVES CONTAMINATION OF A MUNICIPAL WELL FIELD. THE MAIN CONTAMINANT OF CONCERN IS TCE. THE SITE WAS LISTED ON THE NPL IN 1984. FOUR POTEN- TIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES ( PRPS ) ENTERED INTO A CONSENT ORDER FOR CARRY OUT A REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY (RI/FS) IN 1985. DURING THE COURSE OF THE RI, AN INTERIM ACTION RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) WAS ISSUED ON AUGUST 30, 1990 CALLING FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN AIR STRIPPING SYSTEM ON THE MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM. THE SAME FOUR PRPS IMPLEMENTED THIS ROD UNDER A SECTION 106 UNILATERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. THE RI/FS WAS COMPLETED IN 1992, AND A SECOND OPERABLE UNIT ROD WAS ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1992 PROVIDING FOR A LONG TERM SOLUTION FOR SITE CONTAMINATION. THE SELECTED REMEDY FOR THE SITE CONSISTED OF TREATMENT OF CONTAMINATED SOIL AREAS USING SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION, AND EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT OF CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER USING ULTRAVIOLET PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDATION. ONE OF THE PROPERTIES DETERMINED TO BE A SOURCE AREA OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION IS CURRENTLY OWNED BY MDOT. SPECIAL NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO SEVERAL PRPS, INCLUDING MDOT, ON DECEMBER 23, 1992. AFTER NEGOTIATIONS FOR A CONSENT DECREE FOR THE REMEDIAL ACTION WERE UNSUCCESSFUL, U.S. EPA ISSUED A SECOND SECTION 106 ORDER TO EIGHT PRPS, INCLUDING MDOT, CALLING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SECOND OPERABLE UNIT ROD. THE SECOND OPERABLE UNIT ROD HAS SINCE BEEN MODIFIED BY AN EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES (ESD) RELATED TO THE GROUNDWATER PORTION OF THE REMEDY AND A ROD AMENDMENT FOR THE SOILS PORTION OF THE REMEDY. THE ESD AMENDED THE TREATMENT PROCESS FOR THE GROUNDWATER THROUGH ENHANCEMENT OF THE AIR STRIPPING SYSTEM. THE ROD AMENDMENT AMENDED THE SOILS PORTION TO ALLOW FOR CONSOLIDATION OF COMTAMINATED SOIL INTO A TREATMENT CELL, ENCAPSULATION OF THE SOILS, AND TREATMENT OF THE SOILS IN THE CELL USING A VAPOR EXTRATION SYSTEM. ON FEBRUARY 12, 1998, THE UNITED STATESFILED A COMPLAINT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN AGAINST COLTECT INDUSTRIES, INC.; ILLINOIS TOOL WORKDS, INC.; MITCHELL COMPANY OF OWOSSO; STAGERIGHT CORP.; TEXTRON, INC.; AND UNITED TECHNO- LOGIES AUTOMOTIVE, INC. SEEKING RECOVERY OF PAST RESPONSE COSTS RELATED TO THE SITE AND A DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT AS TO THE LIABILITY OF THESE PARTIES FOR FUTURE RESPONSE COSTS. NEGOTIATIONS ARE ONGOING WITH THESE PARTIES. THE PAST COSTS ARE PRIMARILY OVERSIGHT COSTS RELATED TO THE RESPONSE ACTIONS THAT HAVE OCCURRED TO DATE.

Defendants (9)

• COLTEC INDUSTRIES, INC.Named in complaintNamed in settlement
• ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC.Named in complaintNamed in settlement
• AMERICAN DRY CLEANERSNamed in complaintNamed in settlement
• MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONNamed in complaintNamed in settlement
• MITCHELL MANUFACTURING GROUP, INC.Named in complaintNamed in settlement
• MITCHIGAN COMPANY OF OWOSSONamed in complaintNamed in settlement
• STAGERIGHT CORPORATIONNamed in complaintNamed in settlement
• TEXTRON, INC.Named in complaintNamed in settlement
• UNITED TECHNOLOGIES AUTOMOTIVE, INC.Named in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• CLARE WATER SUPPLY

  CITY HALL 202 W 5TH ST, CLARE, MI, 48617

  Registry ID: 110009292201

Statutes cited

• CERCLA 107A — Cost Recovery

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• CLARE WATER SUPPLYentered 1998-09-21

  Primary law: CERCLA

Timeline (5 milestones)

• 1996-09-01Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 1996-09-19Referred To Dept Of Justice
• 1998-06-26Complaint Filed With Court
• 1998-06-30Final Order Lodged
• 1998-09-21Final Order Entered