Interfaith Community Org. v. Honeyweil Intern., Civil Action No. 95-2097(DMC).
| Decision Date | 21 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 95-2097(DMC). |
| Citation | 263 F.Supp.2d 796 |
| Parties | INTERFAITH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al, Defendant(s). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Robert G. Torricelli, Rosemont, NJ, Rosemont Associates, LLC, pro se.
Bruce J. Terris, Kathleen L. Millian, Steven J. German, Terris, Pravlik, and Millian, LLP, Washington, DC, Edward Lloyd, South Orange, NJ, for plaintiff.
Jeffrey Bruce Gracer, David W. Field, Lowenstein, Sandler, PC, Roseland, NJ, Timothy S. Haley, Montclair, NJ, William F. Mueller, Clemente, Mueller & Tobia, P.A., Morristown, NJ, for defendant/cross-claimant/cross-defendant.
John Michael Agnello, Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein, Roseland, NJ, Christopher H. Marraro, William F. Hughes, Wallace, King, Marraro & Branson, PLLC, Washington, DC, for defendant/cross-claimant/cross-defendant/third-party plaintiff.
This is an action brought by Plaintiffs, Interfaith Community Organization (ICO), Lawrence Baker, Martha Webb Herring, Martha Webb, Reverend Winston Clark and Margarita Navis against Defendants, Honeywell International, Inc. (Honeywell), Roned Realty of Jersey City, Inc. (Roned) and W.R. Grace & Co., ECARG, Inc. and W.R. Grace, Ltd. (the Grace Defendants or Grace), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief mandating the cleanup of environmental contamination at Study Area No. 7 (the Site), located in Jersey City, New Jersey. There are also various cross claims by and between Defendants.
The parties tried this matter before me without the benefit of a jury on January 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, and 30, and February 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 of 2003. This Court is asked to decide several issues. First, does the Site in question present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment under 42 U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(B); if so, what steps must be taken to remediate this danger; and, perhaps most importantly, which party is responsible for the remediation.
I find that the Site in question does present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment; the appropriate remediation or cleanup entails the excavation, removal, and treatment of the hazardous waste and then restoration of the Site with clean fill; and the party responsible for the remediation and associated costs of same is Honeywell International, Inc.
These and other issues will be dealt with in greater detail below, as it is now incumbent upon me to make Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P.52(a).
FACTUAL FINDINGS REGARDING THE SITE (STUDY AREA 7)
The Site, known by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) as Study Area 7 of the Hudson County Chromium sites, consists of three contiguous properties: Site 115 (the Roosevelt Drive-in Site), Site 120 (the Furniture Depot, formerly Trader Horn) and Site 157 (formerly the Clean Machine Car Wash). The Site is located on Route 440 in Jersey City, Hudson County, New Jersey, adjacent to the Hackensack River (Block 1290.A, Lots 14D, 14H and 14J). The three properties consist of approximately thirty-four acres with Site 115 making up approximately thirty-one of those acres. The area surrounding the Site consists of commercial and industrial facilities and a residential development. Presently, the Roosevelt Drive-in and Clean Machine Car Wash sites are owned by ECARG, Inc., and the Trader Horn Site is owned by Roned Realty of Jersey City, Inc.
The parties have stipulated that the Site is a "facility" as that term is defined in CERCLA § 101(9), 42 U.S.C. § 9601(9) and N.J.A.C. § 7:1E-1.6.
From approximately 1895 to 1954, Mutual Chemical Company of America owned and operated a chromate production facility located across Route 440 (formerly the Morris Canal) from the Site. Until its close in 1954, this facility extracted chromium from chromium ores to produce chromate chemicals. This process generated chromium bearing waste or chromium ore processing residue which will hereinafter be referred to as COPR. Mutual acquired the property across Route 440 from its Jersey City facility for the purpose of disposing large amounts of COPR. This disposal of COPR by Mutual through a pipeline created a land mass from what was tidal wetlands. During this processing time period, Mutual generated and transported approximately one million tons of chromium contaminated COPR to the Site. The COPR is approximately fifteen to twenty feet deep, covers the entire Site and still remains at the Site today.
Approximately twenty-five percent (25%) to thirty-three per cent (33%) of the chromium in the COPR is in the form of highly toxic hexavalent chromium. As will be discussed in great detail below and as was testified to by numerous medical and scientific experts, hexavalent chromium is a known carcinogen, and depending on one's exposure, will cause a number of health related maladies, as well as environmental problems.
Interfaith is a not for profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of New Jersey. The remaining individual Plaintiffs, Baker, Herring, Webb, Clarke and Navis, are concerned citizens living near the Site.
Honeywell is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. Honeywell is the corporate successor to Mutual Chemical Company of America and Allied Signal, Inc., Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation, Allied Chemical Corporation, Allied Corporation, and is therefore liable for any and all acts, omissions, debts and liabilities of Mutual and Allied related to or arising out of the chromium contamination at the Site. The Allied Corporation and Honeywell International, Inc. will be referred to herein as Honeywell.
Defendant Roned Realty of Jersey City, Inc. owns the portion of the Roosevelt Drive-in Site No. 120 and designated as Lot 14D in Tax Block 1290A, Jersey City, Hudson County, New Jersey. In August, 1960, Amy Joy Realty transferred Site 120 to Hestor Realty Corporation. After a series of real estate transfers over the years, Site 120 came to be owned by Roned Realty in November, 1977. Roned is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of New Jersey and is the present owner of the Trader Horn property, alternatively known as Site 120 which comprises approximately three acres of the Study Area 7 Site.
Mutual, a subsidiary of Allied Signal, which ultimately merged with and became Honeywell, owned and operated the chromium chemical production facility across from the Site from 1895 to 1954. In or about 1954, Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation (later Allied Signal) acquired Mutual and sold the Site to Amy Joy Realty Corporation for the construction of a drive-in movie theater. The drive-in was completed in 1955.
In 1965, Amy Joy Realty Corporation subdivided the Site and leased a portion to Goodrich Associates for the construction of a commercial building. Diana Stores Corporation later joined this lease. Diana Stores Corporation merged into Daylin, Inc. in 1969. Daylin in turn was acquired in 1979 by W.R. Grace & Co. and W.R. Grace, Ltd. W.R. Grace, Inc. is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Connecticut and W.R. Grace, Ltd. is a direct subsidiary of W.R. Grace, Inc. with a registered office in London, England.
In 1981, Daylin acquired two parcels of land constituting the largest portion of Study Area 7 (the Site). At that time, W.R. Grace & Co. and W.R. Grace, Ltd. were the sole stockholders of Daylin. In 1982, Daylin changed its name to the Grace Retail Corporation. In November, 1986 the Channel Acquisition Company (Channel) acquired Grace Retail/Daylin and pursuant to a letter agreement, Grace Retail was to distribute some of its assets, including its portion of the Site, to ECARG, Inc., a New Jersey corporation and a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co. formed in 1975. ECARG presently holds formal title to the Roosevelt Drive-in and Clean Machine Car Wash Sites, Lots 14H and 14J, which comprise approximately thirty-one acres at the Site.
I find Honeywell is the successor to the company (Mutual) which actually deposited the contaminated material at the Site, and Grace and Roned are the present owners of properties which comprise the Site.
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on May 3, 1995. The Complaint was amended on August 2, 1995. In Count One of the Amended Complaint Plaintiffs allege Defendants violated § 7002(a)(1)(B) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B), due to the fact that the chromium bearing waste at the Site may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment. The remaining counts of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint have been dismissed.
On or about May 17, 1996, Roned filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint along with various crossclaims. On January 3, 1997, Roned amended its crossclaims.
The Grace Defendants filed their Third Amended Crossclaims on October 4, 2000, seeking relief against Honeywell under RCRA, CERCLA, the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act and Common Law and other declaratory relief. Honeywell has also asserted crossclaims against Roned and Grace seeking relief under RCRA, contribution under CERCLA, the New Jersey Spill Act and the New Jersey Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law and other declaratory relief.
Shortly before trial, the Court was informed that Roned had settled its claims with Honeywell. As a result, Roned chose not to appear and took no part in the trial. Plaintiffs' claims against Roned however, remain viable.
While the form of Order pertaining to Honeywell's and Roned's settlement remains unsigned, the Court holds that the settlement has occurred and therefore will treat Roned as a settling party as to its Co-Defe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc.
...and substantial endangerment.'" Id. (emphasis original) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 9606(a)); see also Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 263 F.Supp.2d 796, 836 (D.N.J.2003) (under RCRA, "Plaintiffs need not show actual harm to health or the environment. It is enough to show that such......
-
SPS Ltd. P'ship v. Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC
...that the defendants have contributed or are contributing to an endangerment to the environment.”); Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell Int'l, 263 F.Supp.2d 796, 844 (D.N.J.2003) (“[A] straightforward reading of RCRA compels a finding that only active human involvement with the waste is subje......
-
Change v.
...create liability on the part of the owner. (Pl.'s Mem. at 16). For example, defendants cite Interfaith Community Organization v. Honeywell International, Inc., 263 F. Supp. 2d 796 (D.N.J. 2003), aff'd, 399 F.3d 248 (3d Cir.), cert. denied 545 U.S. 1129 (2005), for the proposition that "a st......
-
Vine Street v. Keeling ex rel. Estate of Keeling
...Transfer & Storage Co., 601 S.W.2d 931, 934 (Tex.1980) (applying the rule to insurance benefits). 145. Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 263 F.Supp.2d 796, 865 (D.N.J.2003); see also Kelley v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 17 F.3d 836, 844 (6th 146. Vine Street also seeks a de......
-
Re-exploring Contribution Under Rcra's Imminent Hazard Provisions
...7003 gave the United States the right to recover cleanup costs in lieu of injunctive relief. 109. 42 U.S.C. §6972 (e) (2000). 110. 263 F. Supp. 2d 796 (D.N.J. 2003), aff'd, 399 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1129 (2005). 111. Id. Indeed, the Third Circuit stated that the lo......
-
Acts of God, War, and Third Parties: The Previously Overlooked CERCLA Defenses
...Rep. No. 1016, pt. 1, at 34 (1980), reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6119, 6137. 60. Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 263 F. Supp. 2d 796, 864-65 (D.N.J. 2003). 61. United States v. Domenic Lombardi Realty, Inc., 290 F. Supp. 2d 198 (D.R.I. 2003), af’d , 399 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2......
-
The Particle Problem: Using RCRA Citizen Suits to fill Gaps in the Clean Air Act.
...v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 511, 515 (S.D. Ohio 1993). (132.) See Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 263 F. Supp. 2d 796, 843 (D.NJ. 2003), aff'd, 399 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. (133.) See id. at 834 (appointing a Special Master in an ISE case where the defendant had eng......