Allied Corp. v. Acme Solvents Reclaiming, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 May 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86 C 20377.,86 C 20377. |
| Citation | 691 F. Supp. 1100 |
| Parties | ALLIED CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ACME SOLVENTS RECLAIMING, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Leonard A. Nelson, Schoenberg, Fisher & Newman, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., for Illinois Bronze Paint Co.
James R. Schirott, Charles E. Hervas, James G. Sotos, Frank J. Bochte, Schirott & Associates, P.C., Itasca, Ill., for Syn-Tech, Ltd.
Carey S. Rosemarin, Anthony G. Giglio, Francis X. Arossi, Jr., Katten, Muchin, Zavis, Pearl, Greenberger & Galler, Chicago, Ill., for Federated Paint Mfg. Co.
John L. Ropiequet, Laurence H. Kallen, Jeffrey T. Massari, Arnstein, Gluck, Lehr & Milligan, Chicago, Ill., for James B. Day & Co.
Robert B. Hurwitz, Delman & Hurwitz, Skokie, Ill., for Modine Mfg. Co.
Michael J. Merlo, Carolyn S. Hesse, Pretzel & Stouffer, Chtd., Chicago, Ill., for Universal Chemicals & Coatings, Inc.
John M. Kyle, III, Barnes & Thornburg, Indianapolis, Ind., Robert H. King, Jr., Roger K. Heidenreich, Sonnenschein, Carlin, Nath & Rosenthal, Chicago, Ill., for Lillie Indus. Coatings, Inc.
J. Andrew Schlickman, James F. Warchall, Stephen D. Ramsey, Sidley & Austin, Chicago, Ill., for Barrett Varnish Co.
Charles F. Thomas, Charles F. Helsten, Thomas & Hinshaw, Culbertson, Rockford, Ill., William J. Holloway, David C. McCormack, Thomas S. Malciauskas, Hinshaw, Culbertson, Moelmann, Hoban & Fuller, Chicago, Ill., for Earl Scheib of Illinois, Inc.
Melvin S. Newman, Leonard A. Nelson, Schoenberg, Fisher & Newman, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., for Rolisa Corp.
Richard W. Cosby, Chicago, Ill., Terry R. Bossert, McNees, Wallace & Nurick, Harrisburg, Pa., for Harley-Davidson, Inc.
Harvey M. Sheldon, Timothy M. Kelly, Coffield, Ungaretti, Harris & Slavin, Chicago, Ill., for Continental Can Co., Inc.
Richard Haldeman, Scott Sullivan, Williams & McCarthy, Rockford, Ill., Robert T. Stewart, James S. Teater, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Dallas, Tex., for Whittaker Corp., Gordon Bartels & Co.
Joan M. Hall, Charles L. Barker, Jenner & Block, Chicago, Ill., Larry D. Espel, G. Mark Whitehead, Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, Kaufman & Doty, Ltd., Minneapolis, Minn., for SCM Corp.
Andrew H. Perellis, Dixie L. Laswell, Thomas M. Giller, Gessler, Wexler, Flynn, Laswell & Fleischmann, Chicago, Ill., for John L. Armitage & Co.
Jack D. Ward, Reno Zahm Law Firm, Rockford, Ill., William W. Moir, III, Hayes, Neumann, Humke, Moir & Van Akkeren, Sheboygan, Wis., for Sheboygan Paint Co., Inc.
Eugene R. Pigatti, Rockford, Ill., Leo G. Stern, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Minneapolis, Minn., for Valspar Corp.
Edward Purcell, Purcell & Wadrope, Chicago, Ill., Thomas H. Hill, Barbier, Petersmarck, Tolleson, Mead, Paige & Carlin, P.C., Birmingham, Mich., for Seed-O-Laq Chemicals.
John Lingner III, Freeborn & Peters, Chicago, Ill., for Dexter Corp.
Clifton A. Lake, Rooks, Pitts & Poust, Chicago, Ill., for Henkel Corp. & Rheem Mfg. Co.
Bradley T. Koch, Kim M. Casey, Roberta L. Holzwarth, Bryan G. Selander, Holmstrom & Green, P.C., Rockford, Ill., Jeffrey T. Gilbert, Arnold A. Pagniucci, Charles J. Ryan, Sachnoff, Weaver & Rubenstein, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., for Hydrosol, Inc.
James Russell, James A. Vroman, Winston & Strawn, Chicago, Ill., for General Motors Corp.
Clifton A. Lake, Jeryl Dezelick, Rooks, Pitts & Poust, Chicago, Ill., for Bell & Howell Co. and Textron, Inc.
Raymond T. Reott, Robert L. Graham, Jenner & Block, Chicago, Ill., for Chase Products Co.
Nina Stillman, Paul T. Parker, Jeanne M. Cole, Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz, Chicago, Ill., for Sullivan Varnish Co.
John R. Adams, Ralph W.F. Lustgarten, Yvonne M. Kaminski, Taylor, Miller, Sprowl, Hoffnagle & Merletti, Chicago, Ill., for Reliance Universal, Inc.
Daniel S. Goodman, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Land & Natural Resources Div., Washington, D.C., for U.S.E.P.A.
Thomas M. Giller, Andrew H. Perellis, Dixie L. Laswell, Gessler, Wexler, Flynn, Laswell & Fleischmann, Ltd., Joel H. Fenchel, Ian Brusslan, David W. Inlander, Fischel & Kahn, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., for Coatings & Chemicals Corp.
Kay L. Pick, Altheimer & Gray, Chicago, Ill., for Sundstrand Corp.
James I. Rubin, Anthony E. Rothschild, Butler, Rubin, Newcomer Saltarelli & Boyd, Chicago, Ill., for Reynolds Metals Co.
The plaintiffs bring this case under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601, et seq., ("CERCLA") for recovery of costs incurred in the clean up of a hazardous waste site. The defendants have moved for dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for dismissal of the complaint under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c), and for summary judgment. The Magistrate in September, 1987, considered the motions and recommended that the court deny all four. See, Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, September 3, 1987.
The case is now before the court on the defendants' objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. For the reasons that follow the court adopts the Magistrate's recommendation that the motions be denied.
The facts of this case1 span nearly three decades and reveal an all too familiar story of environmental degradation, subsequent attempts at repair, and legal battle over ultimate responsibility.
Beginning in 1960 and continuing until 1972, the defendant Acme Solvents Reclaiming, Inc. operated a waste disposal site in Winnebago County, Illinois. Acme customers consisted, primarily, of solvent generators. The plaintiffs to this suit and all defendants (except Acme) were industrial customers of the waste disposer. Acme provided these customers with distillation and disposal of waste solvents. Distillation involved separating from the solvents contaminants which comprised or contained hazardous substances. Disposal of the resultant contaminants was made on-site.
Years after Acme ceased its operations, surrounding communities became concerned with the possibility that the hazardous wastes on the Site were contaminating the environment. In response to these concerns, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, together with officials at the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, commenced in 1983 a detailed investigation of the site. The investigation confirmed the fears of the community and revealed a threatened release into the environment of hazardous substances. In accordance with CERCLA, the USEPA placed the Acme site on the National Priorities List.2
The agencies followed their investigation with a two-year study into the feasibility of various cleanup methods. In the spring of 1985, the USEPA sent notices to each plaintiff in this suit, to each defendant (or its predecessor in interest), and to others, informing them that the government considered them to be potentially responsible for implementing a clean-up plan.3
On September 27, 1985, the agency issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in which it selected its preferred course. The ROD called for excavation and on-site incineration of core waste materials, and the off-site disposal of non-incinerable wastes.
After issuance of the ROD, the plaintiffs continued to express their concern, which they had articulated during the proceedings leading to the ROD, over the efficacy and cost of the experimental method of incineration. In accordance with these concerns, the plaintiffs urged the USEPA to reconsider its decision. The USEPA did not, and still has not, formally responded to the request for reconsideration.
In July, 1986, the plaintiffs initiated a response action at the Site. The plaintiffs' plan differed substantially from the plan which the EPA had delineated in its ROD. The plaintiffs' plan called for excavation and off-site disposal of core materials, rather than for on-site incineration. By November, 1986, the plaintiffs substantially completed the removal of over 41,000 tons of non-core materials to licensed off-site landfills.
Though the plaintiffs' plan was at variance with the EPA's ROD, the plaintiffs maintained dialogue with the Agency and in September, 1986, entered into a consent order by which the two parties agreed to a plan for cleaning up the groundwater beneath the Site. In July, 1987, the USEPA issued to the plaintiffs its Certificate of Completion and Covenant Not to Sue. The document certified that the groundwater clean-up had "been duly performed by the participants pursuant to a Work Plan approved by USEPA and IEPA" and that the ground water clean-up was consistent with the National Contingency Plan. The document further contained the USEPA and IEPA covenants not to sue or take administrative action against the plaintiffs for the performance or non-performance of the groundwater clean up.
To date, the plaintiffs have substantially completed clean up of the Acme site, and in so doing, have incurred in excess of nine million dollars in costs. What remains for completion of the project is removal of the excavated core materials to off-site land-fills.
The defendants in the present action have not shared in the costs of cleanup. The plaintiffs in 1986 filed their complaint with this court seeking to force the defendants to do some sharing.
Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9657 (1980), to expand and strengthen the framework of national hazardous substance response previously laid down under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6987. Specifically, CERCLA seeks to expedite the cleanup of hazardous waste sites and to ensure the allocation of cleanup costs among responsible parties. 126 Cong.Rec. 30, 932 (1980) (remarks of Sen. Randolph). See also, Note: Superfund Settlements: The Failed Promise of the 1986 Amendments, 74 Va.L.Rev. 123, n. 2. Because CERCLA provides for a depository of monies to be used to finance hazardous waste cleanups, the Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Seattle v. Monsanto Co.
...the site, a PRP undertakes a remedial action, its action will be deemed inconsistent with the NCP." Allied Corp. v. Acme Solvents Reclaiming, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 1100, 1109 (N.D. Ill. 1988).In its ROD, the EPA defined the LDW as follows:The LDW Site, located south of downtown Seattle, Washin......
-
Town of New Windsor v. Tesa Tuck, Inc.
...(D.Kan.); Chesapeake and Potomac Tel. Co. v. Peck Iron and Metal Co., Inc., 814 F.Supp. 1269 (E.D.Va.1992); Allied Corp. v. Acme Solvents, 691 F.Supp. 1100 (N.D.Ill.1988); Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 669 F.Supp. 1285 (E.D.Pa.1987); Pinole Point Prope......
-
Barmet Aluminum Corp. v. Doug Brantley & Sons, Inc.
...Co., 790 F.Supp. at 717. To conclude otherwise would discourage voluntary clean-up by PRPs. Allied Corporation v. Acme Solvents Reclaiming, Inc., 691 F.Supp. 1100, 1118-1119 (N.D.Ill.1988). The Court finds that a liable, or potentially liable party, such as Plaintiff is alleged to be, is no......
-
Ekotek Site PRP Committee v. Self
...Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. of Va. v. Peck Iron & Metal, 814 F.Supp. 1269, 1277 (E.D.Va.1992); Allied Corp. v. Acme Solvents Reclaiming, Inc., 691 F.Supp. 1100, 1118 (N.D.Ill.1988); Chemical Waste Mgt. v. Armstrong World Indus., 669 F.Supp. 1285, 1292 (E.D.Pa. 1987). These decisions ......
-
Defenses and Exceptions to Liability
...caveat emptor and ‘clean hands’ . . . do not comport with congressional objectives.”); Allied Corp. v. Acme Solvents Reclaiming, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 1100 (N.D. Ill. 1988). he Allied court reasoned that the language of §107 allowed “any person” to recover costs, that this language “overrides ......
-
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: the correct paradigm of strict liability and the problem of individual causation.
...whether the costs of remediating environmental harm at a site should be apportioned."); Allied Corp. v. Acme Solvents Reclaiming, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 1100, 1116 (N.D. ILL. 1988) ("There is some indication that Congress, too, has blessed the rule enunciated in Chem-Dyne. Though the amendments......
-
CHAPTER 6 APPORTIONING ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS1
...unclean hands defense in this context would turn Congressional intent on its head"); and Allied Corp. v. Acme Solvents Reclaiming, Inc., 691 F.Supp. 1100, 1119 (N.D. Ill. 1988). Although not an exhaustive treatment of the procedural and statutory defenses which defendants have used to avoid......