U.S. v. Jg-24, Inc., No. CIV.00-1483(RLA).

• Decision Date: 12 August 2004
• Docket Number: No. CIV.00-1483(RLA).
• Citation: 331 F.Supp.2d 14
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. JG-24, INC., Jorge Ortiz, Gloria Alvarez Nieves, Duramas, Inc., and Real Property Located at PR Road # 675, KM 4.0, Barrio Bajuras, Sector Los Chorros, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

331 F.Supp.2d 14

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. JG-24, INC., Jorge Ortiz, Gloria Alvarez Nieves, Duramas, Inc., and Real Property Located at PR Road # 675, KM 4.0, Barrio Bajuras, Sector Los Chorros, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, Defendants.

No. CIV.00-1483(RLA).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

August 12, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Elizabeth Yu, Myles E. Flint, Henry S. Friedman, Alfred S. Irving, Jr., Peter M. Flynn, U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Enforcement Section, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Silvia L. Carreno-Coll, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Isabel Muñoz-Acosta, U.S. Attorney's Office Torre Chardón, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.

Benjamín Ortiz Belaval, Ortiz & Rodriguez, Manuel Catinchi-Betancourt, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.

Jorge Ortiz, Santurce, PR, Pro se.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

ACOSTA, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, the United States of America, on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") instituted this suit involving two sites, the J & G Site in Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, and the Cataño facility in Cataño, Puerto Rico.

With respect to the J & G Site, the United States claims as follows:

(a) Claim for cost recovery under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) (hereinafter "CERCLA"), for the costs of actions the United States has taken in response to the release or threatened release of CERCLA hazardous substances at the J & G Site;

(b) Several claims for failure to comply with a statutory provision of and regulations promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 6901, et seq., for which the United States seeks injunctive relief in the form of continuation post-trial of the provisions of paragraph 2 of the Stipulation endorsed by the Court on January 31, 2003 herein (docket # 84) and civil penalties pursuant to Section 3008 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6928; and

(c) Claim for civil penalties under Section 104(e) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9604(e), for failure to comply with the EPA Administrative Order requesting access for sampling and investigative activities.

With respect to the Cataño facility, the United States' claim is for injunctive relief and civil penalties under Section 3008 of RCRA, for failure to respond to an EPA information request pursuant to Section 3007 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6927.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I.  FINDINGS OF FACT ...............................................................20
                A.  Defendant Jorge Ortiz ............................................................20
                B.  J & G Site .......................................................................20
                    1.   Location ....................................................................20
                    2.   Manufacturing Operations ....................................................20
                C.  Cataño Facility ..................................................................21
                    1.   Location ....................................................................21
                    2.   Facilities ..................................................................21
                D.  Defendant Jorge Ortiz' Companies .................................................22
                    1.   JG-24, Inc. ("JG-24") .......................................................22
                         a.  Incorporation ...........................................................22
                         b.  JG-24 Has Not Been Operated As a Corporation ............................22
                         c.  JG-24 Lost Its Corporate Status and is a Proprietorship .................22
                         d.  Jorge Ortiz is the Proprietor and Person in Control of JG-24 ............23
                    2.   Distribuidora K-Aribe /D.T. Karibe, Inc......................................23
                         a.  Incorporation ...........................................................23
                         b.  Distribuidora K-Aribe Has Not Been Operated As a Corporation ............24
                         c.  Distribuidora K-Aribe/D.T. Karibe's Corporate Status Expired ............24
                         d.  Distribuidora K-Aribe is a Proprietorship and Jorge Ortiz is the
                               Proprietor ............................................................24
                    3.   Fiberglass DuraMas/Dura Mas .................................................26
                         a.  Incorporation ...........................................................26
                         b.  Fiberglass Dura Mas Has Not Been Operated As a Corporation ..............26
                         c.  Fiberglass Dura Mas Is Not a Corporation ................................27
                         d.  Fiberglass Dura Mas is a Proprietorship and Jorge Ortiz is the
                               Proprietor ............................................................27
                    4.   Jorge Ortiz' Companies are Commingled and Linked ............................29
                E.  Facts Relating to United States' Claims re J & G Site ............................30
                    1.   Ownership of the J & G Site .................................................30
                    2.   December 3, 1997 Inspection .................................................30
                    3.   February 1998 Initial Sampling and Inspection ...............................31
                    4.   Access ......................................................................32
                    5.   April 1999 Sampling Investigation ...........................................33
                         a.  Site Conditions .........................................................33
                         b.  Site Practices ..........................................................34
                

                         c.  Chemicals Used ..........................................................34
                         d.  Releases and Threatened Releases ........................................35
                         e.  Sample Results — Superfund Support Team Sampling Report ..................36
                         f.  Soil Boring Results .....................................................37
                         g.  Attempt to Sample Local Groundwater .....................................38
                    6.   Decision to Conduct Removal Action ..........................................38
                    7.   March 2000 Overflight .......................................................39
                    8.   May/June 2000 Inspection ....................................................39
                    9.   Access and Cease and Desist Stipulation .....................................40
                    10.  RCRA Violations .............................................................40
                    11.  Removal Action ..............................................................43
                    12.  Groundwater monitoring ......................................................44
                    13.  Costs .......................................................................45
                    14.  In Rem Claim Facts ..........................................................52
                    15.  Injunctive Stipulation ......................................................53
                F.  Facts Relating to United States' Claim re Cataño Facility ........................53
                    1.   Ownership of the Cataño Property ............................................53
                    2.   Chemicals Stored and Used at the Cataño Facility ............................54
                    3.   Current Fiberglass Product Manufacturing at the Cataño Facility For
                           Jorge Ortiz ...............................................................54
                    4.   Inspections and RCRA Information Request ....................................55
                    5.   Control Over Environmental Decisionmaking at the Cataño Facility ............58
                II.  CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ...............................................................59
                A.   Defendants are Liable for the United States Costs under CERCLA Relating to
                       the J & G Site ................................................................59
                B.   Defendants are Liable for Violations of RCRA at the J & G Site ..................67
                C.   Defendants are Liable for Failure to Provide Access to the J & G Site ...........71
                D.   Defendants Jorge Ortiz and Duramas are Liable for Failure to Respond to the
                       RCRA Information Request Concerning the Cataño Facility .......................72
                

FINDINGS OF FACT¹

A. Defendant Jorge Ortiz²

1. Defendant Jorge Ortiz' middle name is Joaquin, and his surname from the maternal side is Romany. (Stipulated Fact No. 4)

2. Defendant Jorge Ortiz' Social Security Number is 583-01-2227. (Stipulated Fact No. 226)

3. Defendant Jorge Ortiz' address is Calle Diez de Andino 111, Santurce, PR. (Plaintiff Exh. 176, p. 8; Stipulated Fact No. 238)

B. J & G Site

1. Location

4. The J & G Site is approximately 40 acres in size and is located at PR Road # 675, Km. 4.0, Barrio Bajuras, Sector Los Chorros, Vega Alta, Puerto Rico. (Stipulated Fact No. 7)

2. Manufacturing Operations

5. Fiberglass products were made at the J & G Site. The operations involved fiberglass, solvents, resins, and catalysts, and also acetone, styrene and methyl ethyl ketone peroxide. (Stipulated Fact No. 235)

6. Acetone, styrene, and methyl ethyl ketone peroxide are CERCLA hazardous substances. (Michael Ferriola Direct and Michael Mercado Direct testimony; 40 C.F.R. § 302.4)

7. The fiberglass product manufacturing operations at the J & G Site began in approximately 1992 and continued through at least July 2000 (when the Answer to the initial Complaint in this action was filed). Defendant JG-24 used the J & G Site to manufacture fiberglass products such as swimming pools, water tanks, boats, and horse carriages. (Answer, ¶ 11, and Complaint, ¶ 11,³ Plaintiff Exh. Exhibit 14,⁴ p. 2.)⁵

8. Jorge J. Ortiz personally went to the supplier or suppliers to buy materials including resins, solvents, and catalysts used in the production at the J & G Site and took them personally to the J & G Site. The usual procedure was to buy these materials using cash. The quantities of the materials used depended on the demand for finished products (boats, water tanks, car tops, swimming...