Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 1 of 67 PageID: 1
`
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`COZEN O’CONNOR
`Peter J. Fontaine
`Matthew L. Elkin
`Amorie Hummel
`1010 Kings Highway S.
`Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034
`Phone: (856) 910-5000
`Email: pfontaine@cozen.com
`melkin@cozen.com
`ahummel@cozen.com
`
`__________________________________________
`
`
`
`)
`WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`EPEC POLYMERS, INC., (
`TENNECO
`)
`POLYMERS, INC. and TENNECO RESINS, INC., )
` HEYDEN CHEMICAL CORPORATION),
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`and
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`)
`GREDEL PROPERTIES, LLC,
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`__________________________________________)
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`CASE NO.: ______________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, Weston Solutions, Inc. (“Weston”), by and through its attorneys, Cozen
`
`O’Connor, for its Complaint against Defendants, EPEC Polymers, Inc. (“EPEC”) and Gredel
`
`Properties, LLC (“Gredel”), alleges as follows:
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 2 of 67 PageID: 2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This action concerns a request for declaratory relief and apportionment of
`
`responsibility among and between Plaintiff Weston and Defendants EPEC and Gredel for past
`
`and future costs of response actions pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
`
`Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”) and the New Jersey Spill Compensation
`
`and Control Act (the “NJ Spill Act”).
`
`2.
`
`Weston seeks to hold EPEC and Gredel liable for their (and/or their
`
`predecessors’) releases of hazardous substances into and along Crows Mill Creek and associated
`
`wetlands in the Fords section of Woodbridge Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey
`
`(hereinafter, the “Crows Mill Creek Wetland” or the “Wetland”).
`
`3.
`
`Weston is an environmental remediation services company that is contractually
`
`responsible for investigating and remediating pollution conditions caused by operations or
`
`conditions at the “Hatco Facility,” including pollution that migrated from the Hatco Facility to
`
`the Wetland prior to November 4, 2002. The Hatco Facility and those offsite areas where Hatco
`
`pollution has come to be located are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Hatco
`
`Remediation Site.”
`
`4.
`
`The primary pollutants of concern at the Hatco Remediation Site are
`
`polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) and Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (“BEHP”), which are
`
`designated as hazardous substances under CERCLA and the NJ Spill Act.
`
`5.
`
`Weston incurred the obligation to investigate and remediate the Hatco
`
`Remediation Site in 2005, as part of agreements between the Hatco Facility’s former owners, the
`
`New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”), and the U.S. Environmental
`
`Protection Agency (“USEPA”). Weston’s engagement is subject to the regulatory oversight of
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 3 of 67 PageID: 3
`
`these agencies. Weston does not, and has never, owned or operated the Hatco Facility or the
`
`Hatco Remediation Site, nor any portion of the adjacent properties at issue in this action.
`
`6.
`
`The Defendants are the current and/or former owners, lessors, and/or operators of
`
`three industrial facilities that were located downstream from the Hatco Facility adjacent to the
`
`Wetland: the “EPEC Facility” (which includes two of these facilities) and the “Gredel Facility”
`
`(collectively, the “Offsite Facilities”).
`
`7.
`
`For at least 70 years, industrial operations at the Offsite Facilities released
`
`hazardous substances consisting of PCBs, BEHP, and other toxic contaminants into the Wetland.
`
`8.
`
`The Wetland is approximately 26-acres extending almost 2,800 feet south from
`
`the Hatco Facility.
`
`9.
`
`For a number of years up through 2020, at the direction of NJDEP and USEPA,
`
`Weston conducted a series of investigations of hazardous substances in the Wetland.
`
`10.
`
`The investigations confirmed that hazardous substances released by the Hatco
`
`Facility are limited to an approximately 1-acre area in the northern portion of the Wetland close
`
`to the Hatco Facility. This area is referred to as Hatco Area of Concern 25 (“Hatco AOC 25”).
`
`11.
`
`The following figure (also attached as Exhibit 1) depicts, among other things, the
`
`Wetland (and the portions owned by EPEC, Gredel, and Woodbridge Township), the Hatco
`
`Facility, the EPEC Facility, the Gredel Facility, and Hatco AOC 25:
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 4 of 67 PageID: 4
`
`
`
`12.
`
`At the direction of NJDEP and USEPA, Weston has completed extensive
`
`delineation of hazardous substances in the Wetland, including collecting and analyzing more
`
`than 1,000 samples.
`
`13. Weston’s data demonstrates a clear picture: the Offsite Facilities—and
`
` the
`
`Hatco Facility—were responsible for the vast majority of contamination in the Wetland.
`
`14.
`
`In particular, sample results indicated low concentrations of PCBs and BEHP in
`
`Hatco AOC 25, while the highest concentrations of PCBs and BEHP in the Wetland are directly
`
`adjacent to the EPEC Facility.
`
`15.
`
`Similarly, sample results detected higher concentrations of PCBs in the Wetland
`
`directly adjacent to the Gredel Facility.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 5 of 67 PageID: 5
`
`16. Weston’s further investigations establish that the Offsite Facilities contaminated
`
`the Wetland for decades.
`
`17.
`
`The following figures (also attached as Exhibit 2) depict the distribution of PCB
`
`and BEHP contamination in the Wetland relative to the Hatco Facility and the Offsite Facilities:
`
`PCBs
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 6 of 67 PageID: 6
`
`BEHP
`
`
`
`18. Weston has incurred, and will incur in the future, necessary costs of response
`
`pursuant to CERCLA and the NJ Spill Act to address hazardous substances released by the
`
`Offsite Facilities into the Wetland. Weston is not responsible for these costs.
`
`19.
`
`The releases of hazardous substances into the Wetland from the Offsite Facilities
`
`are distinguishable and divisible from, and far more substantial than, the releases of hazardous
`
`substances into the Wetland from the Hatco Facility.
`
`20.
`
`To date, Weston has incurred response costs of around $3 million for its Wetland
`
`investigations, as well as additional costs for the disposal of PCB contaminated debris generated
`
`by EPEC’s remediation of lead battery waste at the EPEC Facility, as described further herein.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 7 of 67 PageID: 7
`
`21. Weston seeks cost recovery from each Defendant pursuant to Section 107(a) of
`
`CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a), and contribution pursuant to Section 58:10-23.11f of the NJ
`
`Spill Act and New Jersey common law for Weston’s past and future costs of response, along
`
`with a declaration pursuant to Section 113(g) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9613(g), and the
`
`Declaratory Judgment Act (“DJA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, as to each Defendant’s
`
`liability, and an allocation of past and future response costs.
`
`22. Weston’s investigation of these facts and circumstances is ongoing, and it
`
`reserves the right to supplement and update the allegations herein as new information is
`
`discovered and confirmed.
`
`II.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff Weston is a corporation organized in Pennsylvania with its principal
`
`place of business at 1400 Weston Way, West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380.
`
`24. Weston is an employee-owned environmental remediation services company
`
`started in 1957 by Roy F. Weston. Weston specializes in the remediation and cleanup of
`
`hazardous waste sites, and maintains offices in Edison, New Jersey, and twenty-four other
`
`locations across the United States.
`
`25. Weston has incurred response costs in connection with its contractual obligation
`
`to Lanxess Corporation (
`
` as Chemtura Corporation) to investigate and remediate certain
`
`hazardous substances on or emanating from the Hatco Facility,
`
`, the former Hatco Chemical
`
`Corporation facility located at 1020 King Georges Post Road, Fords, Woodbridge Township,
`
`Block 67, Lot 100.01 (formerly designated as Block 67, Lot 100.01 and Block 60, Lot 1.021)
`
`(NJDEP PI# G000003943).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 8 of 67 PageID: 8
`
`26. Weston does not, and has not ever, owned or operated the Hatco Facility or the
`
`Hatco Remediation Site, nor any portion of the Offsite Facilities or the Wetland.
`
`27.
`
`Defendant EPEC is a corporation organized in Delaware with its principal place
`
`of business at 350 N. St. Paul Street, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`28.
`
`EPEC is the current owner of a portion of the Wetland and is the successor-in-
`
`interest to Tenneco Polymers, Inc., Tenneco Resins, Inc. (
`
` Tenneco Chemicals, Inc.), and
`
`Heyden-Newport Chemical Corporation (
`
` Heyden Chemical Corporation and
`
` Nuodex
`
`Products Company, Inc.), all former owners and/or operators of the EPEC Facility.
`
`29.
`
`Defendant Gredel is a limited liability company organized in Delaware with its
`
`principal place of business at 1717 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75202.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant Gredel is the current owner of a portion of the Wetland and the entirety
`
`of the Gredel Facility.
`
`III.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`31.
`
`This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section
`
`107(a) and 113(b) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a) and 9613(b), providing federal jurisdiction
`
`over controversies arising under CERCLA, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, providing federal
`
`jurisdiction over controversies involving questions of federal law, which is inclusive of this
`
`Court’s right to fashion appropriate declaratory relief pursuant to the DJA.
`
`32.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction over the contribution claims under the NJ Spill Act and
`
`New Jersey common law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
`
`33.
`
`Venue is proper in the District of New Jersey under Section 107(a) of CERCLA,
`
`42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a), and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because the release of hazardous substances that
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 9 of 67 PageID: 9
`
`gives rise to this action occurred at the EPEC Facility and Gredel Facility, which are both located
`
`in this judicial district.
`
`IV.
`
`BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS
`
`A.
`
`34.
`
`The Wetland
`
`The Wetland is comprised of three parcels, a northern parcel owned by EPEC
`
`(Block 93, Lot 100.011) (the “EPEC portion of the Wetland”), a middle parcel owned by
`
`Gredel (Block 61, Lot 1.01) (the “Gredel portion of the Wetland”), and a southern parcel
`
`owned by Woodbridge Township (Block 77, Lot 100) (the “Woodbridge portion of the
`
`Wetland”), as depicted in Exhibit 1.
`
`35.
`
`The EPEC portion of the Wetland extends from Riverside Drive south
`
`approximately 1,100 feet.
`
`36.
`
`The Gredel portion of the Wetland extends from the southern boundary of the
`
`EPEC portion of the Wetland south approximately 1,100 feet.
`
`37.
`
`The Woodbridge portion of the Wetland extends from the southern boundary of
`
`the Gredel portion of the Wetland south approximately 600 feet to the boundary with Trap Rock
`
`Industries.
`
`38.
`
`From there, Crows Mill Creek continues south approximately 1,300 feet to the
`
`Raritan River.
`
`B.
`
`39.
`
`The Hatco Cleanup Agreement
`
`In 2005, Weston entered into agreements with the NJDEP and the then- current
`
`and former owners and/or operators of the Hatco Facility (
`
`, Hatco Corporation, W.R. Grace &
`
`Co.-Conn., and Remedium Group, Inc.) (collectively, the “Original Hatco Parties”), pursuant to
`
`which Weston agreed to conduct “Investigation and Remediation” of certain “Pre-Existing
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 10 of 67 PageID: 10
`
`Pollution Conditions” at and/or emanating from the Hatco Facility on or before November 4,
`
`2002.
`
`40. Weston’s agreement to conduct Investigation and Remediation of Pre-existing
`
`Pollution Conditions at the Hatco Remediation Site was memorialized in a: (a) Settlement
`
`Agreement between Weston, NJDEP, and the Original Hatco Parties; (b) Administrative Consent
`
`Order between NJDEP and Weston; (3) Remediation Agreement between Weston and the
`
`Original Hatco Parties; and (4) a letter from the USEPA pursuant to the federal Toxic Substances
`
`Control Act (“TSCA”) approving a risk-based disposal application relating to the planned
`
`remediation of PCBs at the Hatco Facility (collectively, the “Hatco Cleanup Agreement”).
`
`41.
`
`Pursuant to the Hatco Cleanup Agreement, Weston is only responsible for
`
`environmental contamination resulting from hazardous substances at or migrating from the
`
`Hatco Facility if those hazardous substances were resulting from pollution conditions occurring
`
`prior to November 4, 2002 (
`
`, the Hatco Remediation Site).
`
`42. Weston is
`
` responsible for hazardous substances outside of the Hatco Facility
`
`that did not migrate from the Hatco Facility.
`
`C.
`
`43.
`
`The Hatco Facility
`
`The Hatco Facility occupies an approximately 78-acre parcel bounded by King
`
`Georges Post Road to the north and Riverside Drive (formerly Industrial Drive) to the south.
`
`44.
`
`The Hatco Facility began operations in 1954 with a primary focus on
`
`manufacturing various phthalate ester-based products, including phthalic anhydride, plasticizers,
`
`and synthetic lubricants. Phthalate ester-based waste products tend to float on the surface of
`
`water and are considered Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (“LNAPL”).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 11 of 67 PageID: 11
`
`45.
`
`Beginning in 1929, Monsanto Corporation (
`
` Swann Chemical) sold a suite of
`
`heat-resistant chlorinated biphenyl products—PCBs—for a wide variety of industrial uses,
`
`including heat transfer applications, nonflammable sealing waxes, plasticizers in paints,
`
`varnishes, lacquers, and adhesives, and dielectric fluids in electrical transformers and capacitors,
`
`among others.
`
`46. Monsanto’s PCB products bore the name “Aroclor” followed by a four-digit
`
`number, with the first two digits representing the number of carbon atoms in the phenyl rings
`
`(for PCBs this is 12) and the second two digits representing the percentage of chlorine by mass
`
`in the mixture.
`
`47.
`
`For example, the product name Aroclor 1248 means that the PCB mixture
`
`contained approximately 48 percent chlorine by weight, Aroclor 1254 contained approximately
`
`54 percent chlorine by weight, and Aroclor 1260 contained 60 percent chlorine by weight.
`
`48.
`
`Between 1961 and 1966, as was common in organic chemical manufacturing and
`
`a wide variety of other industries, the Hatco Facility used two Aroclor products, Aroclor 1248
`
`and Aroclor 1254.
`
`49.
`
`The Hatco Facility used Aroclor 1248 to facilitate heat transfer in the boiler
`
`system used in the chemical manufacturing process. Aroclor 1248 was widely used due to its
`
`fire-resistance and its capacity to withstand the excessive heat needed to manufacture many
`
`organic chemicals, including phthalate resins, paints, varnishes, and adhesives.
`
`50.
`
`The Hatco Facility also used Aroclor 1254, a plasticizer additive used in an off-
`
`color plasticizer product. Aroclor 1254 plasticizer was widely used by manufacturers of
`
`phenolic resins, varnishes, and paints as a plasticizer additive.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 12 of 67 PageID: 12
`
`51.
`
`Another Monsanto PCB product, Aroclor 1260 plasticizer, was also widely used
`
`by manufacturers of phenolic resins, varnishes, and paints as a plasticizer additive. However, the
`
`Hatco Facility
`
`
`
` use Aroclor 1260 in its operations.
`
`52.
`
`Over the years, spills and leakage from the Hatco Facility resulted in
`
`contamination of soils, groundwater, surface water, and sediments on the Hatco Remediation
`
`Site. The source of contamination was PCBs, primarily Aroclor 1248, and to a lesser extent
`
`Aroclor 1254; various phthalate esters, most significantly BEHP (
`
` Di(2-Ethylhexyl)
`
`Phthalate or Dioctyl Phthalate); and minor amounts of volatile organic compounds.
`
`53.
`
`Thus, the two primary contaminants of concern driving the remediation of the
`
`Hatco Remediation Site are PCBs (Aroclors 1248 and 1254) and BEHP.
`
`54.
`
`PCBs and BEHP are hydrophobic compounds, meaning they are relatively
`
`insoluble in water and have a propensity to adsorb (
`
`, attach) to soils and sediments. However,
`
`PCBs are freely soluble in phthalate esters (including BEHP) such that PCBs in contact with
`
`phthalate ester LNAPL will tend to dissolve into the LNAPL.
`
`55.
`
`From 1957 to 1970, the Hatco Facility treated its process wastewaters containing
`
`BEHP and other phthalate esters, plus spent PCB oils, through a series of settling ponds located
`
`in the southwestern portion of the Hatco Facility. In these settling ponds, the phthalate esters and
`
`PCB oils were allowed to partition and float to the pond surface for skimming and recovery, and
`
`they were returned to the manufacturing operation to produce an off-color plasticizer product.
`
`56.
`
`The Hatco Facility settling ponds were constructed near the headwaters of a
`
`roughly mile-long stream called Crows Mill Creek. The northern 700-feet of Crows Mill Creek
`
`was located on the Hatco Facility. From there, the creek traveled south beneath and across
`
`Riverside Drive and through the Wetland.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 13 of 67 PageID: 13
`
`57.
`
`The Hatco Facility settling ponds discharged to the Crows Mill Creek headwaters
`
`from about 1958 to 1966, and then to a manmade channel leading to Crows Mill Creek referred
`
`to as “Channel D” from about 1966 to 1968. Channel D joins Crows Mill Creek about 275 feet
`
`south of Riverside Drive.
`
`58.
`
`The Hatco Facility connected to what is now known as the Middlesex County
`
`Utilities Authority (“MCUA”) public sewer system beginning in November of 1966 and
`
`reaching completion by August of 1968.
`
`59.
`
`Given the insolubility of PCBs and BEHP in water, the migration of these
`
`contaminants from the Hatco Facility occurred primarily through LNAPL and adsorption to
`
`sediments within Crows Mill Creek and Channel D, with only a very small fraction dissolved in
`
`surface water.
`
`60.
`
`Prior investigations of Crows Mill Creek and Channel D by the Original Hatco
`
`Parties determined that PCBs and BEHP from the Hatco Facility did not migrate within Channel
`
`D more than about 200 feet south of Riverside Drive, about half-way to the point where Channel
`
`D joins Crows Mill Creek, based on data indicating very low PCB and BEHP concentrations.
`
`61. Multiple investigations by Weston have determined that only Hatco AOC 25 (
`
`,
`
`the approximately 1-acre northern portion of the Wetland close to the Hatco Facility) has been
`
`impacted by Hatco Facility operations. (
`
`Exhibit 1.) 1
`
`
`
`1 Hatco AOC 25 is the extent of offsite impacts from the Hatco Facility in the Wetland. At one
`point during Weston’s investigation phase, the aerial extent of Hatco AOC 25 was postulated to
`include the downgradient portions of the Wetland, including the entirety of both the EPEC
`portion of the Wetland and the Gredel portion of the Wetland. By 2020, Weston completed its
`investigation of the Wetland and confirmed that impacts from the Hatco Facility are limited to
`only Hatco AOC 25. The Hatco Remediation Site boundaries include Hatco AOC 25. Hatco
`AOC 25 is also impacted with releases of hazardous substances from the Offsite Facilities,
`namely the well-documented releases from the EPEC Wetland Dump.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 14 of 67 PageID: 14
`
`D.
`
`62.
`
`The Offsite Facilities
`
`Just south of the confluence with Channel D, Crows Mill Creek flows past the
`
`EPEC Facility and Gredel Facility, each of which discharged hazardous substances into the
`
`Wetland.
`
`63.
`
`The data from Weston’s investigations and EPEC’s prior investigations indicate
`
`that the Wetland is contaminated with PCBs and BEHP that originated from the EPEC Facility,
`
`and that certain PCBs in the Wetland originated from the Gredel Facility.
`
`64.
`
`The data unequivocally establishes that all of the PCB and BEHP contamination
`
`within the Wetland south of Hatco AOC 25, and a significant portion of these contaminants
`
`within Hatco AOC 25, originated from the EPEC Facility and the Gredel Facility.
`
`65.
`
`In the most northern portion of the Wetland, directly downgradient from the
`
`Hatco Facility and within Hatco AOC 25—where the most significant impacts from the Hatco
`
`Facility would be expected given its relative proximity to the Hatco Facility—the data for PCBs
`
`(377 samples) and BEHP (196 samples) indicate a frequency of detection of 68% (PCBs) and
`
`74% (BEHP), a median concentration of 1.0 ppm (PCBs) and 7.8 ppm (BEHP), an average
`
`concentration of 2.8 ppm (PCBs) and 421 ppm (BEHP), and a maximum concentration of 140
`
`ppm (PCBs) and 21,000 ppm (BEHP), respectively.
`
`66.
`
`In stark contrast, in the middle portion of the Wetland—the area where the EPEC
`
`Facility discharged from its pond system as alleged herein—the data for PCBs (343 samples) and
`
`BEHP (441 samples) indicate a frequency of detection of 87% (PCBs) and 97% (BEHP), a
`
`median concentration of 3.2 ppm (PCBs) and 260 ppm (BEHP), an average concentration of 18.9
`
`ppm (PCBs) and 1,977 ppm (BEHP), and a maximum concentration of 508 ppm (PCBs) and
`
`58,000 ppm (BEHP), respectively. (
`
`Exhibit 2.)
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 15 of 67 PageID: 15
`
`67.
`
`In addition, this middle portion of the Wetland also contains numerous other
`
`hazardous substances
`
` with the Hatco Facility, including butylated hydroxytoluene
`
`(“BHT”), chlorotoluene, dichlorobenzene, benzaldehyde, and trichlorobenzene.
`
`68.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of releases of PCBs, BEHP, and other hazardous
`
`substances from the Offsite Facilities, Weston has incurred, and will incur, significant costs of
`
`response to remediate the releases of hazardous substances by the Defendants.
`
`a)
`
`The EPEC Facility Historic Operations
`
`69.
`
`The EPEC Facility (NJDEP PI# G000001659) was at one time a sprawling
`
`organic chemical manufacturing complex located on 250 acres north and south of Riverside
`
`Drive. (
`
` Exhibit 1.) Active organic chemical manufacturing was conducted on the EPEC
`
`Facility south of Riverside Drive and adjacent/west of the Wetland on Block 93, Lots 100 series
`
`(formerly Block 62, Lot 2).
`
`70.
`
`The EPEC Facility consists of the former EPEC Polymers, Inc. facility comprised
`
`of both active manufacturing areas and hazardous waste disposal areas west of the EPEC portion
`
`of the Wetland, from which hazardous substances migrated to the Wetland, plus a designated
`
`hazardous substance liquids disposal area within the EPEC portion of the Wetland.
`
`71.
`
`The EPEC Facility also includes the former American Catalin Corporation,
`
`
`
`Catalin Corporation of America and American Catalin Corporation facility (now known as
`
`Ashland, LLC and, collectively, referred to hereinafter as “Ashland”), which was located on and
`
`within the EPEC Facility and from which hazardous substances were transported to and released
`
`upon the EPEC portion of the Wetland.
`
`72.
`
`The following figure (also attached as Exhibit 3) depicts the EPEC Facility, the
`
`Gredel Facility, and the Hatco Facility:
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 16 of 67 PageID: 16
`
`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 16 of 67 PagelD: 16
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 17 of 67 PageID: 17
`
`73.
`
`Between 1916 and 1985, the EPEC Facility used and manufactured a wide variety
`
`of heavily chlorinated organic compounds and phthalates to produce vinyl resins, herbicides, and
`
`a host of chlorinated intermediate chemicals. Over at least a 40-year period, the EPEC Facility
`
`generated hazardous wastes, including Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (“NAPL”) containing PCBs,
`
`BEHP, BHT, chlorinated benzenes, chlorinated toluenes, and benzaldehyde, which it disposed in
`
`an on-site hazardous waste dump (the “EPEC Northern Dump”) and in an adjacent liquid waste
`
`dumping area in the northwest corner of the Wetland (the “EPEC Wetland Dump”).
`
`74.
`
`Both of these EPEC Facility hazardous waste disposal areas released hazardous
`
`substances to the Wetland. PCBs, BEHP, and a host of other hazardous substances directly
`
`traceable to the EPEC Facility—including BHT, chlorobenzenes, and chlorotoluenes—migrated
`
`into the Wetland, and remain there today.
`
`75.
`
`The EPEC Facility began operations in 1916 as Norvell Chemical Corporation,
`
`which manufactured chemicals used in the production of phenolic resins and phenolic resin
`
`molding compounds, namely formaldehyde and hexamethylenetetramine. Industrial wastes were
`
`handled via a pond system on the EPEC Facility—West Lake (the furthest western pond); (b)
`
`Middle Lake; and (c) Hartman’s Pond (a 5-acre waterbody that was the furthest east pond and
`
`directly adjacent to the Wetland).
`
`76.
`
`The following figures (also attached as Exhibit 4) depict the EPEC Facility with
`
`the distribution of PCB and BEHP contamination in the Wetland:
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 18 of 67 PageID: 18
`
`PCBs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 19 of 67 PageID: 19
`
`BEHP
`
`
`
`77.
`
`Over its 70 years of operation, ownership and/or responsibility, the EPEC Facility
`
`changed hands many times: from Heyden Chemical Corporation (1926-1957), to Heyden-
`
`Newport Chemical Corporation
`
` Nuodex Products Company (1957-1963), to Tenneco
`
`Chemical, Inc. (1963-1982), to Nuodex Corporation (1982-1984), to Hüls America (1984-1992),
`
`and to EPEC (1992-present). The Tenneco entities are collectively referred to hereinafter as
`
`“Tenneco.” The Heyden entities, including Nuodex Products Company, are collectively referred
`
`to hereinafter as “Heyden.”
`
`78.
`
`The sale of the EPEC Facility from Nuodex Corporation to Hüls America in 1984
`
`triggered an investigation of hazardous substance discharges under the Environmental Cleanup
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 20 of 67 PageID: 20
`
`Responsibility Act, the predecessor New Jersey cleanup statute to the current Industrial Site
`
`Recovery Act. Upon information and belief, in 1992, due to extensive contamination, Hüls
`
`America and the former owner, Tenneco (now EPEC)
`
` Nuodex Corporation (now
`
`associated with Nuodex, Inc.), reached an agreement whereby Tenneco took-back ownership of
`
`and remediation responsibility for the EPEC Facility.
`
`79.
`
`The EPEC Facility manufactured and/or used many of the same organic
`
`chemicals as the Hatco Facility, including phthalic anhydride (
`
` phthalic acid), a precursor to
`
`phthalate esters used as plasticizers in polyvinyl chloride (“PVC”) resins. Phthalate esters,
`
`including BEHP, are derived from the reaction of phthalic anhydride with alcohols.
`
`80.
`
`For many years, the EPEC Facility manufactured phthalic anhydride and BEHP,
`
`which was used in PVC resins. On or before July 1973, EPEC transferred the phthalic anhydride
`
`operation from the EPEC Facility to a sister plant in Burlington, New Jersey, which reported
`
`BEHP as a waste product present in plant sludge.
`
`81.
`
`The EPEC Facility also manufactured and/or used a wide variety of other
`
`products not made and/or used at the Hatco Facility, including dozens of highly-chlorinated
`
`organic compounds used as herbicides (weed killers), dyes, pharmaceuticals, mothproofing
`
`agents, germicides, fungicides, bactericides, and plastic resins. Among the chemicals
`
`manufactured by the EPEC Facility were chlorotoluenes, polychlorinated camphene (branded
`
`Strobane,
`
`. toxaphene), 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid and 2,3,6-Trichlorophenylacetic acid
`
`(branded Tri-Fene), chlorobenzenes (including 2,3,6-trichlorobenzoic acid and 2,4
`
`dichlorobenzoic acid), benzaldehyde (essential oils, flavorings, and insecticides), hydrochloric
`
`acid, benzotrifluoride (soaps), latex resins (branded “Supercryl”), formaldehyde (phenolic
`
`resins), benzene hexachloride (“BHC”), and BHT (antioxidant used in PVC resins, including
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 21 of 67 PageID: 21
`
`extensive use of BHT Ionol as an antioxidant stabilizer in the latex paint Supercryl and EPEC’s
`
`PVC resins), among others.
`
`82.
`
`The EPEC Facility used significant quantities of BHT, which was an antioxidant
`
`additive in the Supercryl latex resin. EPEC’s other two New Jersey plastic resin plants—in
`
`Burlington and Flemington—also used BHT.
`
`83.
`
`The EPEC Facility employed two types of formaldehyde manufacturing
`
`processes: (a) a silver catalyst unit constructed in the 1930s with a very high reaction
`
`temperature of 600°- 650°C; and (b) a metal oxide catalyst unit constructed in the 1960s with a
`
`reaction temperature of 300°-400°C.
`
`84.
`
`The formaldehyde manufacturing processes and a wide variety of other thermal
`
`processes at the EPEC Facility required the use of heat transfer fluids.
`
`85.
`
`From time-to-time, the EPEC Facility experienced catastrophic thermal
`
`explosions, including fatal explosions in the boiler room on May 28, 1958, and in the
`
`benzaldehyde manufacturing area on March 7, 1968.
`
`86.
`
`Upon information and belief, the EPEC Facility extensively used and disposed of
`
`PCBs in a variety of its processes, including as heat transfer fluids, plasticizers, and dielectric
`
`fluids in electrical equipment.
`
`87.
`
`The EPEC Facility also used a product, Dowtherm A and G, containing biphenyls
`
`that generate PCBs when exposed to chlorine, which multiple EPEC Facility operations used in
`
`copious amounts. Dowtherm A was also marketed as a replacement for PCB heat transfer fluids.
`
`88.
`
`In addition to its use of PCBs in connection with heat transfer fluids, plasticizers,
`
`and dielectric fluids, upon information and belief, the EPEC Facility also generated PCBs as a
`
`result of the byproducts of its various manufacturing processes that relied on the extensive use of
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 22 of 67 PageID: 22
`
`chlorine, toluene, benzene, 2,4 dichlorobenzoic acid, and phenolic resins, and in its use and/or
`
`manufacturing of BHC.
`
`89.
`
`The EPEC Facility’s manufacturing of phthalic anhydride and BEHP, and its
`
`extensive use and indirect production of PCBs, resulted in the release of PCBs and BEHP from
`
`the EPEC Facility into the Wetland.
`
`b)
`
`The EPEC Facility Operations of Ashland
`
`90.
`
`At the western end of the EPEC Facility was another former organic chemical
`
`manufacturing facility, leased or owned and operated by Ashland (NJDEP PI# G000002706 and
`
`G000000448), located at Block 95, Lots 10.01, 10.02 (previously Block 95, Lots 10A, 10B), as
`
`depicted on Exhibits 1 and 3.
`
`91.
`
`Ashland began operations at the EPEC Facility around 1930, when it first leased
`
`facilities owned by Heyden.
`
`92.
`
`Ashland made cast phenolic resins, liquid phenolic resins, and polystyrene. It
`
`manufactured phenolic resins using formaldehyde supplied by the EPEC Facility.
`
`93.
`
`Ashland also manufactured a variety of coal-tar-derived dyes to color its phenolic
`
`resins.
`
`94.
`
`Like EPEC and/or its predecessors, Ashland used a wide variety of thermal
`
`processes that required heat transfer fluids. Ashland purchased PCB-containing heat transfer
`
`fluids from Monsanto.
`
`95.
`
`Ashland leased its land and buildings from EPEC’s predecessor, Heyden, until
`
`1952.
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02593 Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 23 of 67 PageID: 23
`
`96.
`
`Ashland shared much of its manufacturing infrastructure with the EPEC Facility,
`
`including the pond systems that received waste from both Ashland and other EPEC Facility
`
`operations.
`
`97.
`
`Upon information and belief, Ashland also used the EPEC Facility to dispose of
`
`its industrial wastes, including in the EPEC Northern Dump and in the EPEC Wetland Dump,
`
`where liquid wastes containing coal tar, PCBs, BEHP, BHT, 3,5-Di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxytoluene,
`
`3,5-Di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxybenzaldehy