United States v. Ward

Decision Date09 September 1985
Docket NumberNo. 83-63-CIV-5.,83-63-CIV-5.
Citation618 F. Supp. 884
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, State of North Carolina, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. Robert Earl WARD, Jr. and Ward Transformer Co., Inc., Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs, v. NORRY ELECTRIC CORPORATION and Liberty Motor and Machinery Co., Third Party Defendants.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

James S. Perry, Asst. U.S. Atty., Raleigh, N.C., Jeremy Ray Akers, Washington, D.C., Anne L. Asbell, Atlanta, Ga., Douglas Greenhous, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.

Thomas F. Moffitt, Deputy Atty. Gen., Raleigh, N.C., for plaintiff-intervenor.

Walter E. Brock, Jr., Jerry S. Alvis, Raleigh, N.C., for defendants.

Charles C. Meeker, Robert W. Spearman, Raleigh, N.C., for Norry Elec. Corp.

Ralph McDonald, Raleigh, N.C., for Liberty Motor and Machinery Co.

ORDER

BRITT, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff, the United States of America, brought this action seeking to have the defendants, Robert Earl Ward, Jr., and Ward Transformer Company, Inc. (the Ward defendants), held liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) for reimbursement of federal funds spent in cleaning up hazardous substances off the roadsides of Eastern North Carolina. 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) (1982). The State of North Carolina subsequently intervened as a party plaintiff seeking restitution for the expenses it incurred in cleaning up these same spills. The Ward defendants then filed third-party complaints against Norry Electric Corporation (Norry Electric) and Liberty Motor and Machinery Company (Liberty Motor) seeking contribution and/or indemnity on any amounts the Ward defendants might be required to pay.

Currently pending before the court and now ripe for ruling are the following:

1. Motion by plaintiff, the United States of America, for partial summary judgment against the Ward defendants;

2. Motion by plaintiff-intervenor, the State of North Carolina, for partial summary judgment against the Ward defendants;

3. Motion by the Ward defendants for partial summary judgment;

4. Motion by Norry Electric for partial summary judgment against the Ward defendants on Norry's fourth counterclaim;

5. Motion by Norry Electric for summary judgment on claims asserted against it by the Ward defendants;

6. Motion by Liberty Motor for summary judgment against the Ward defendants;

7. Appeal by the Ward defendants from the magistrate's discovery order of 2 January 1985;

8. Motion by the Ward defendants for leave to file a third-party complaint against Neil Norry, president of Norry Electric, and Manny Margolis, president of Liberty Motor;

9. Joint motion by the United States of America and the State of North Carolina in opposition to defendants' demand for a jury trial;

10. Motion by the Ward defendants to separate the trial of certain counterclaims;

11. Motion by the State of North Carolina to appear as amicus curiae on the issue of the constitutionality of North Carolina General Statute § 75-1.1;

12. Motion by the State of North Carolina for leave to amend the complaint in intervention; and

13. Motion by Norry Electric to strike a memorandum submitted by the Ward defendants regarding the motions for summary judgment.

The summary judgment motions and the appeal from the magistrate's discovery order of 2 January 1985, motions one through seven listed above, came on for hearing before the court on 5 April 1985. Motions eight through ten were taken under advisement by the court pending the 5 April hearing. The three remaining motions became ready for ruling after the hearing was set. All thirteen motions will be ruled upon seriatim in this order.

I. FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

Defendant, Ward Transformer Company, Inc. (WTC), is a Raleigh, North Carolina, corporation which in 1978 was engaged in the business of purchasing, rebuilding and selling electrical equipment, including electrical voltage transformers. At that time the president and principal shareholder of the corporation was defendant, Robert Earl Ward, Jr. (Ward). Ward's son, Robert Earl Ward, III, owned the remaining shares. Until 1980, when he turned over control of the corporation to his son, Ward was responsible for the day-to-day business decisions, either individually or in conjunction with other corporate officers, and was actively engaged in the management and operation of the company.

In 1978 large quantities of transformer insulating fluid containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were stored at WTC's facility in Wake County in 55-gallon drums, transformers and a holding tank. On 17 February 1978, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published final administrative rules regarding the labeling, storage, and disposal of PCBs, pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act. 15 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2629 (1982). These rules became effective on 18 April 1978. The new rules had a major impact on the electrical transformer repair industry because of the use of PCBs in transformer insulating fluid. Their enactment made storage and disposal of PCB-laden transformer oil undesirable. Consequently, WTC adopted a policy of not buying any more transformers containing PCB oil and began to explore ways to get rid of the PCB oil then in storage at its Wake County facility.

During the first part of 1978 Ward asked his son to look into ways of disposing of the PCB oil being stored at the WTC facility. After considering price quotations from six companies who offered to dispose of the oil, Ward, his son and Fred Tucker (another member of WTC's board of directors) entered into an agreement with Robert J. Burns. Burns was a long-time acquaintance and business associate of Ward, who then owed Ward personally some $55,000. The agreement made provided that WTC was to pay Burns $1.70 per gallon plus freight costs for removal of the PCB oil from the Wake County facility. The agreement was verbal and was never reduced to writing or incorporated in a company resolution. Sometime after the oral agreement was made, Burns agreed to pay Ward 70 cents per gallon of oil he removed as repayment on the personal debt.

In the spring of 1978 Burns and his two sons, assisted by WTC employees, began removing the PCB oil. They began with the oil stored in the 55-gallon drums. After the oil was removed from the drums, Burns and his sons began removing oil from the transformers.

There were approximately forty-one PCB transformers then located at the WTC facility, containing approximately 12,850 gallons of PCB fluid. Six of the transformers, containing some 3,180 gallons of PCB fluid, belonged to WTC. One transformer, belonging to Electric World, contained about 247 gallons. Nine transformers containing 1,900 gallons belonged to Liberty Motor. Twenty-five transformers with approximately 7,500 gallons were owned by Norry Electric. After the oil had been removed, Liberty Motor and Norry Electric were informed by WTC that their oil had been disposed of by Burns.

In order to aid in disposal of the oil and at Burns' request, Robert Earl Ward, III, ordered a 750-gallon tank in which to put the oil taken from the transformers. The tank was paid for by Burns and loaded into his van-type truck. Over a period of time Burns and his sons loaded at least 9,400 gallons of PCB oil into this tank.

After the PCB fluid was removed from the WTC premises Burns and his sons dumped it from the 750-gallon tank onto the Fort Bragg Military Reservation and along various roadways in North Carolina. The first dumping of PCB oil was done at Fort Bragg during the last week of June 1978 from an enclosed yellow truck outfitted with the 750-gallon tank and piping connected to a nozzle extending from the rear right side of the truck which could be opened to allow a steady stream of oil to escape as the truck was being driven down the road.

Shortly after the Fort Bragg dumpings Burns informed Ward of his method of disposal. Ward did not report it to anyone but continued to permit Burns to remove the PCB oil from WTC. Ward claims that he received assurances from Burns that there would be no further illegal disposal. The government disputes this fact.

During the last week of July and the first few weeks of August 1978 Burns and his sons began dumping PCB oil along the road shoulders in Eastern North Carolina in the counties surrounding Raleigh. For these later dumpings the 750-gallon tank was transferred to an enclosed blue Sears "van-type truck" and the piping/nozzle configuration altered so that the nozzle extended from the rear of the passenger cab and the flow of liquid could be controlled from the cab. This allowed the person sitting on the passenger side of the van to spray the oil continuously along the highway road shoulder as the truck was being driven down the highway. To do this spraying Burns and his sons selected secluded stretches of roadway in rural areas. The valve was left open except when the truck was passing through inhabited or well-lit areas.

Both alterations to the 750-gallon tank used by Burns were done at the WTC facility with the help of WTC employees. The Ward defendants admit this but claim that neither they nor their employees had any knowledge of the purpose for the altering of the pipes.

At the end of June 1978 governmental authorities discovered areas of discolored grass and stained earth along approximately eleven miles of road shoulder on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation. Then in the last few days of July and the first days of August government authorities discovered similar discolored strips along approximately 210 miles of highway road shoulders in Alamance, Chatham, Edgecombe, Franklin, Granville, Halifax, Harnett, Johnston, Lee, Nash, Person, Wake, Warren and Wilson Counties. Chemical analysis of soil, grass and liquid oil samples collected from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
115 cases
  • U.S. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • August 31, 2004
    ...with the NCP. 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a). "This language requires deference... to the judgment of agency professionals." United States v. Ward, 618 F.Supp. 884, 900 (E.D.N.C.1985). 35. In this case, the EPA determined that the release or threatened release of hazardous substances from Necco Park m......
  • US v. Mottolo
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire
    • August 29, 1988
    ...limitation to postenactment expenditures. See, e.g., O'Neil, supra, 682 F.Supp. at 729 (and citations therein); United States v. Ward, 618 F.Supp. 884, 898-99 (E.D.N.C.1985); Shell Oil Co., supra, 605 F.Supp. at 1068-79; Developments in the Law — Toxic Waste Litigation, 99 Harv.L.Rev. 1458,......
  • Kelley v. Thomas Solvent Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • December 13, 1989
    ...759 F.2d 1032, 1044 (2d Cir.1985); United States v. Conservation Chemical, Co., 619 F.Supp. 162, 204 (D.C.Mo.1985); United States v. Ward, 618 F.Supp. 884, 893 (E.D.N.C.1985). 1. Owner or Section 107(a)(1) imposes liability on current owners or operators of facilities. Similarly, under sect......
  • Acme Printing Ink Co. v. Menard, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • December 5, 1994
    ...the corporation, and the responsibility undertaken by that individual in this area should be considered."). See also United States v. Ward, 618 F.Supp. 884, 894 (D.N.C.1985) ("A corporate officer ... who exercises authority for the company's operations and participates in arranging for the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • North Carolina. Practice Text
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library State Antitrust Practice and Statutes (FIFTH). Volume II
    • December 9, 2014
    ...361, 364-65 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995), abrogated by Whiteacre P’ship v. Biosignia, Inc. 591 S.E.2d 870 (2004). 227. United States v. Ward, 618 F. Supp. 884, 902 (E.D.N.C. 1985); see Hinson v. United Fin. Servs., 473 S.E.2d 382, 387 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996). 228. The court in Liner v. DiCresce , 905 ......
  • North Carolina
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library State Antitrust Practice and Statutes. Fourth Edition Volume II
    • January 1, 2009
    ...Id. at *11. 202. Id. at *12. 203. Medicare Rentals v. Advanced Servs., 460 S.E.2d 361 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995). 204. United States v. Ward, 618 F. Supp. 884, 902 (E.D.N.C. 1985); see Hinson v. United Fin. Servs., 473 S.E.2d 382, 387 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996). 205. The court in Linear v. DiCresce , 9......
  • CHAPTER 4 REDUCING THE LEGAL EXPOSURE OF OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AND EMPLOYEES
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Corporate Environmental Management II (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...F. Supp. 1214 (W.D. Mich. 1989); United States v. Conservation Chemical Corp., 619 F. Supp 162 (W.D. Mo. 1985); United States v. Ward, 618 F. Supp. 884 (E.D.N.C. 1985). [4] See, e.g., United States v. Dean, 969 F.2d 187 (6th Cir. 1992); United States v. Hayes International Corp., 786 F.2d 1......
  • The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: the correct paradigm of strict liability and the problem of individual causation.
    • United States
    • UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy Vol. 18 No. 2, December 2000
    • December 22, 2000
    ...*3 (S.D. Ohio 1994) (noting that entire contaminated aquifer that extended over a wide area was a facility); United States v. Ward, 618 F. Supp. 884, 892, 895 (E.D.N.C. 1985) (210 miles of road contaminated by active spraying); United States v. Metate Asbestos Corp., 584 F. Supp. 1143, 1148......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT