EPA v. UNITED CREOSOTING

Case summary

THE TEXAS WATER COMMISSION CONDUCTED THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGAT -ION/FEASIBILITY STUDY (RI/FS) OF THE SITE UNDER A COOPERA- TIVE AGREEMENT. FIELD WORK FOR THE RI WAS CONDUCTED IN TWO PHASES, THE FIRST IN DECEMBER 1984 AND THE SECOND IN AUGUST 1985. THE FIRST RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) WAS SIGNED IN SEPT 1986 FOR THE INTERIM REMEDY WHICH CONSISTS OF INSTALLING A TEMPORARY CAP OVER THE AREA, PURCHASE AND DEMOLITION OF SIX HOMES LOCATED ON TOP OF THE LAGOONS, AND PERMANET RELOCATION OF PERSON CURRENTLY RESIDING IN THESE 6 HOMES. THE REMEDIAL DESIGN FOR THIS INTERIM REMEDY WAS COMPLETED IN MARCH 1988. PRESENTLY, THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA), THROUGH A CONTRACT WHITH THE EPA, IS PROVIDING PERMANET RE- LOCATION TO THE HOMEOWNERS AND TENANTS RESIDING IN THE HOUSE PLANNED FOR DEMOLITION IN SEPTEMBER 1989. DUE TO THE SHORT TIME FRAME BETWEEN THE INTERIM REMEDY AND THE FINAL REMEDY, EPA WILL NOT AT THIS TIME BE INSTALLING A TEMPORARY CAP. EPA AND THE TEXAS WATER COMMISSION HAVE CONDUCTED BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT AND FLUID EXTRACTION STUDIES ON WASTE FROM THE SITE IN A SUPPLEMENTAL FEASIBILITY STUDY (SFS) IN AN EFORT TO FIND A PERMANET REMEDY. A ROD FOR THE PERMANENT REMEDY IS PLANNED FOR SIGNATURE IN SEPT. 1989. EPA REQUESTED THAT AN ACTION BE FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTH- ERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, HOUSTON DIVISION, PURSUANT TO SECTION 107(A) OF CERCLA AGAINST 4 RESPONSIBLE PARTIES TO RECOVER PAST RESPONSE COSTS INCURRED BY EPA REGARDING THE UNITED CREOSOTING CO. SITE. THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN 1989. EPA SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENTS WITH ALL FOUR DEFENDANTS TO RECOVER A TOTAL A- MOUNT APPROXIMATELY $45,000. HOWEVER, AFTER EXTENSIVE IN- VESTIGATION OF THE DEFENDANTS' ABILITY TO PAY AND THE FILING OF BANKRUPTCY BY ONE DEFENDANT, EPA REQUESTED THAT DOJ FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUIT. EPA BASED ITS DECISION ON IN- FORMATION SHOWING THAT THE MOST THAT COULD BE RECOVERED FROM THE DEFENDANTS WAS APPROXIMATELY $20,000. IN ADDITION, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ORDERED THAT NO FUNDS WOULD BE DISBURSED FROM THE ESTATE OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS. NO OTHER VIABLE PRPS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED, THUS EPA ANTICIPATES THAT NO FUR- THER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS WILL BE TAKEN. TNRCC WITH THE EPA OVERSIGHT WILL CONDUCT THE REMEDIAL ACTION AT THE SITE.

Defendants (5)

• WILKENFELD, J. H.Named in complaint
• COKER, ERNEST, JR.Named in complaint
• MONTGOMERY COUNTY GROWTH, INC.Named in complaint
• RUSSELL F. WIGGINSNamed in complaint
• TNRCC

Facilities (1)

• UNITED CREOSOTING SUPERFUND SITE

  7 WOOD CREEK DR, CONROE, TX, 77301

  Registry ID: 110000842795

Statutes cited

• CERCLA 107A — Cost Recovery

Timeline (5 milestones)

• 1989-06-30Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 1989-06-30Referred To Dept Of Justice
• 1989-10-16Complaint Filed With Court
• 1995-04-14Concluded
• 1995-04-14Enforcement Action Closed