throbber
Case: 5:22-cv-01558-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/02/22 1 of 40. PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`Kegan A. Brown
`Taylor R. West (pro hac vice to be filed)
`Youlan Xiu (pro hac vice to be filed)
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`1271 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10020
`Telephone: (212) 906-1200
`Facsimile: (212) 751-4864
`Email: kegan.brown@lw.com
`Email: taylor.west@lw.com
`Email: youlan.xiu@lw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Paddock Enterprises, LLC
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`
`
`PADDOCK ENTERPRISES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civ. Action No. 5:22-cv- 1558
`
`
`
`Civil Action
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Paddock Enterprises, LLC, successor by merger to Owens-Illinois, Inc.
`
`(“Paddock”), by and through its attorneys, hereby brings this Complaint against Defendant
`
`United States of America (“United States”) and states as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This action seeks to hold the United States responsible for environmental
`
`contamination on its property that the United States has known about, but failed to remediate, for
`
`decades. As a consequence of the United States’ failure to address the contamination on its
`
`property years earlier, Paddock has incurred response costs under the Comprehensive
`
`Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C § 9601 et
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 5:22-cv-01558-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/02/22 2 of 40. PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`seq. Paddock now seeks to recover those past response costs and any future response costs
`
`incurred from the United States.
`
`2.
`
`In 1984 and 1985, the United States knowingly purchased approximately 30 acres
`
`of contaminated property known as the Jaite Paper Mill (“Jaite Mill”). Jaite Mill is a former
`
`paper mill and corrugated box plant, adjacent to the Cuyahoga River and Brandywine Creek, and
`
`located within the Cuyahoga Valley National Park (“CVNP”) in northeastern Ohio.
`
`3.
`
`By acquiring Jaite Mill in its environmentally contaminated condition, the United
`
`States reaped a significant financial benefit because the contamination reduced the value of Jaite
`
`Mill at a time when the United States was trying to acquire land for the CVNP with limited
`
`appropriations funding from Congress.
`
`4.
`
`With the intent of acquiring Jaite Mill as inexpensively as possible, the United
`
`States took the unusual step of urging the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“Ohio EPA”)
`
`to forbear from requiring a previous Jaite Mill owner and operator, Tecumseh Corrugated Box
`
`Company (now known as TCBC II, Inc.) (“TCBC”), to address known, longstanding
`
`environmental contamination caused by TCBC’s operations.
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, the United States did not want TCBC to address the
`
`contamination at Jaite Mill because if TCBC actually did so, Jaite Mill likely would have
`
`increased in value and cost the United States more to purchase it for the CVNP.
`
`6.
`
`Despite having urged Ohio EPA not to require TCBC to address the known
`
`contamination at Jaite Mill, and despite the passage of CERCLA in 1980 that imposes liability
`
`on current owners and operators for contamination on their property, the United States did not
`
`immediately begin investigating and remediating the contamination when it purchased Jaite Mill
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 5:22-cv-01558-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/02/22 3 of 40. PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`in 1984 and 1985. Nor did the United States take any action to require TCBC to investigate and
`
`remediate the contamination.
`
`7.
`
`Instead, the United States made Jaite Mill – a known contaminated property –
`
`accessible and open to the public as part of the CVNP.
`
`8.
`
`It was not until 2004 – nineteen (19) years after acquiring Jaite Mill – that the
`
`United States even started to investigate contamination at Jaite Mill in earnest. It then took the
`
`United States another sixteen (16) years (i.e., until 2020) to complete its investigation of that
`
`contamination. Ultimately, the United States took thirty-five (35) years after purchasing Jaite
`
`Mill to delineate contamination that the United States knew existed prior to acquiring the
`
`property.
`
`9.
`
`Not surprisingly, given the United States’ multi-decade delay, the state of
`
`contamination in soils, groundwater, surface water, and sediments at and adjacent to Jaite Mill
`
`had worsened. As a consequence, the cost to address the contamination today is likely greater
`
`than what it would have been in 1985 (or even before 1985, if the United States had let Ohio
`
`EPA require TCBC to investigate and remediate the contamination).
`
`10.
`
`The United States currently estimates that it will cost approximately $45 million
`
`to remediate Jaite Mill to a pristine, unimpaired condition that the United States incorrectly
`
`asserts CERCLA requires.
`
`11.
`
`In 2018, the United States requested that Paddock, which formerly owned and
`
`operated Jaite Mill through a predecessor from 1951 until 1967, perform a time-critical removal
`
`action under CERCLA to stabilize a portion of the Jaite Mill property that abuts the Cuyahoga
`
`River. In connection with the United States’ request, Paddock incurred necessary CERCLA
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 5:22-cv-01558-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/02/22 4 of 40. PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`response costs at Jaite Mill consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
`
`Contingency Plan (“NCP”).
`
`12.
`
`As the current owner and operator of Jaite Mill, the United States is liable for
`
`Paddock’s past response costs incurred at Jaite Mill, and any future response costs Paddock may
`
`incur at Jaite Mill, including with respect to the United States’ selected $45 million remedy to
`
`address the contamination.
`
`13.
`
`Through this action, Paddock seeks (i) a declaration of the United States’ liability
`
`for Jaite Mill contamination under both CERCLA and the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 2201 et seq., (ii) to recover Paddock’s past necessary response costs incurred at Jaite Mill
`
`under CERCLA, and (iii) to obtain a declaratory judgment that the United States is liable for
`
`Paddock’s future necessary response costs, if any, incurred at Jaite Mill under both CERCLA
`
`and the Declaratory Judgments Act.
`
`PARTIES
`
`14.
`
`Paddock is a Delaware limited liability company with its headquarters in
`
`Perrysburg, Ohio.
`
`15.
`
`Paddock is a “person” within the meaning of Section 101(21) of CERCLA, 42
`
`U.S.C. § 9601(21).
`
`16.
`
`The United States is a “person” within the meaning of Section 101(21) of
`
`CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(21).
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`17.
`
`This action arises under Section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607, and the
`
`Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 5:22-cv-01558-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/02/22 5 of 40. PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`18.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Paddock’s claims arise under federal law and district courts have
`
`exclusive original jurisdiction over CERCLA claims, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(b).
`
`19.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) and 42 U.S.C. §
`
`9613(b) because the events giving rise to Paddock’s claims occurred in this District. In addition,
`
`the Jaite Mill at which Paddock incurred necessary response costs is located entirely within this
`
`District.
`
`20.
`
`In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 9613(l), Paddock has provided a copy of this
`
`Complaint to the Attorney General of the United States and the Administrator of the United
`
`States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”).
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Congress Created the Cuyahoga Valley National Park for Recreational Space Knowing
`the Cuyahoga River and Nearby Valley Lands Already Were Contaminated
`
`Jaite Mill is located within the CVNP, an area Congress envisioned would
`
`21.
`
`provide recreational space to citizens living in and visiting the Cuyahoga Valley region of the
`
`country.
`
`22.
`
`The United States understood that Cuyahoga Valley lands acquired for the CVNP
`
`might have environmental contamination, in no small part due to the enduring contamination of
`
`the Cuyahoga River and the Cuyahoga Valley’s location between the cities of Cleveland and
`
`Akron.
`
`23.
`
`On December 27, 1974, Congress passed legislation that established the
`
`Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area, which was later renamed the Cuyahoga Valley
`
`National Park on October 11, 2000. See 16 U.S.C. § 460ff (the “CVNP Act”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 5:22-cv-01558-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/02/22 6 of 40. PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`24.
`
`CVNP spans nearly 33,000 acres in the Cuyahoga Valley, which runs along the
`
`banks of the Cuyahoga River between Cleveland and Akron.
`
`25.
`
`Long before CVNP was designated as federal recreational land, the State of Ohio
`
`had undertaken efforts to preserve recreational space for citizens living in and visiting the greater
`
`Cleveland and Akron areas.
`
`26.
`
`In the early twentieth century, the State of Ohio established state metroparks in
`
`the Cuyahoga Valley, providing open recreation areas that could be used for picnics, camping,
`
`sports, and walking.
`
`27.
`
`In 1929, local Ohio businessman F.A. Seiberling donated privately owned land to
`
`the State of Ohio to increase the amount of land that could be preserved for recreational
`
`purposes.
`
`28.
`
`In 1966, the Federal Bureau of Recreation and the National Park Service, both
`
`agencies of the United States, conducted a Recreation Feasibility Study on the Cuyahoga Valley
`
`to consider whether it should be eligible for federal preservation. The agencies reported they had
`
`never seen such a polluted waterway as the Cuyahoga River.
`
`29.
`
`The 1966 Recreation Feasibility Study concluded that the Cuyahoga Valley was
`
`not worthy of federal preservation because (i) the contaminated Cuyahoga River would prevent
`
`water-related recreational activities, and (ii) the Cuyahoga Valley did not possess any
`
`outstanding natural values.
`
`30.
`
`By the mid-1960s, the Cuyahoga River had become infamous for its pollution,
`
`having caught on fire more than a dozen times dating from the 1860s.
`
`31.
`
`In June 1969, parts of the Cuyahoga River caught on fire and burned for three (3)
`
`days straight. Following the media attention on the infamous river fire, the United States
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 5:22-cv-01558-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/02/22 7 of 40. PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`identified six (6) industrial companies in Cleveland that were responsible for the discharge of
`
`hazardous substances into the Cuyahoga River. Neither Paddock nor its predecessor were
`
`identified as one of these six (6) companies.
`
`32.
`
`In 1970, John F. Seiberling (the grandson of F.A. Seiberling), was elected to the
`
`U.S. House of Representatives for Ohio’s 14th congressional district. John F. Seiberling, like his
`
`grandfather, sought to preserve additional recreational space in the Cuyahoga Valley. In his
`
`view, federal preservation of a national recreation area in the Cuyahoga Valley was urgently
`
`needed because of rising land prices in the Cuyahoga Valley and imminent encroachment from
`
`developers.
`
`33.
`
`In 1971, newly-elected U.S. Congressman Seiberling proposed a bill to create the
`
`“Ohio Canal and Cuyahoga Valley National Historical Park and Recreation Area” that would
`
`place the Cuyahoga Valley under the management of the National Park Service as a national
`
`park. This bill never received a committee hearing in either U.S. chamber. Seiberling, however,
`
`persisted in his effort to have a Cuyahoga Valley recreation space federally recognized.
`
`34.
`
`In March and June of 1974, the U.S. House of Representatives held two (2)
`
`hearings to gauge public support for a national recreation area in the Cuyahoga Valley.
`
`35.
`
`Supporters of a national recreation area believed that only the federal government
`
`had the financial resources and ability to win the race against developers who were increasingly
`
`purchasing land in the Cuyahoga Valley.
`
`36.
`
`Opponents of a national recreation area, in contrast, saw the existing, known
`
`environmental contamination as a practical impediment to using Cuyahoga Valley land for
`
`recreation. In 1971, local residents sent a letter to the United States explaining that “[t]here is
`
`NO discussion about the enormous costs of removing the pollution which really negates the use
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 5:22-cv-01558-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/02/22 8 of 40. PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`of the area, in safety, for the public.” (Emphasis in italics added). This same point was made
`
`again during an April 8, 1974 Senate hearing, where citizens opposed to a national recreation
`
`area in Cuyahoga Valley explained that any proposed camping, picnicking, boating, fishing,
`
`hunting, and hiking were impossible because “[i]t is beyond our belief that anyone can say the
`
`area of the Cuyahoga River valley by virtue of pollution is conducive to these activities.”
`
`37.
`
`The U.S. House and Senate Reports from December 1974, issued just weeks
`
`before the CVNP Act was passed, also acknowledge the presence of contamination in the
`
`Cuyahoga River.
`
`38.
`
`Federal agencies, including the Office of Management and Budget and the
`
`Department of Interior (“Interior”), were staunchly opposed to the creation of the CVNP. The
`
`Office of Management and Budget took the position that the Cuyahoga Valley possessed no
`
`qualities that would qualify it for inclusion in the National Park System, and Interior did not see
`
`a need for federal involvement where the State of Ohio had already begun preserving land in the
`
`region.
`
`39.
`
`Interior also opposed creation of the CVNP because creating a national park in the
`
`Cuyahoga Valley would set a precedent for an urban recreation area near every large city in the
`
`country.
`
`40.
`
`Nevertheless, Congress passed the CVNP Act to create the Cuyahoga Valley
`
`National Recreation Area.
`
`41.
`
`Despite objections from the Office of Management and Budget, Interior, and his
`
`advisors, President Ford signed the CVNP Act into law on December 27, 1974.
`
`42.
`
`Even after the CVNP was created, Interior reiterated its prior position that the
`
`CVNP lacked any intrinsic value beyond its recreational opportunity.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 5:22-cv-01558-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/02/22 9 of 40. PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`43.
`
`In a February 20, 1975 hearing before the U.S. House Subcommittee of the House
`
`Committee on Appropriations, then-Secretary of Interior Rogers Morton stated: “let’s face it, the
`
`establishment of Cuyahoga Valley in Ohio is a set-aside that primarily is not for its primitive or
`
`natural values; it is in fact that it is open space and in that open space you can develop a
`
`tremendous amount of recreation opportunity.” (Emphasis added).
`
`The Troubled CVNP Land Acquisition Plan and Rising Property Values in the Cuyahoga Valley
`Required the United States to Acquire Land for CVNP As Cheaply As Possible
`
`44.
`
`The United States saw environmental contamination of the land it sought to
`
`acquire for the CVNP as a benefit because contaminated land was cheaper to acquire than
`
`uncontaminated land, and a poorly-managed federal land acquisition process for the CVNP
`
`caused delays while land prices in the Cuyahoga Valley skyrocketed.
`
`45.
`
`Upon passage of the CVNP Act, the Secretary of Interior was authorized to
`
`“acquire lands, improvements, waters, or interests” within the proposed boundaries of the CVNP.
`
`16 U.S.C. § 460ff-1(a). Daily management of the CVNP, in turn, would be the responsibility of
`
`the National Park Service, an agency within Interior.
`
`46.
`
`The CVNP Act provided that the land necessary to create the CVNP would have
`
`to be acquired by donation, purchased with donated or appropriated funds, exchanged, or
`
`transferred within six (6) years from the date of enactment of the legislation (i.e., by 1980). 16
`
`U.S.C. § 460ff-2(b).
`
`47.
`
`The funds appropriated by Congress were not designated to purchase specific
`
`properties. Instead, the Secretary of Interior was required to establish an acquisition plan that
`
`indicated the order in which property for the CVNP would be acquired with the funds
`
`appropriated.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 5:22-cv-01558-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/02/22 10 of 40. PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`48.
`
`Due, in part, to the economic recession and political instability surrounding the
`
`conflict in Vietnam in the mid-1970s, federal spending on national parks was stymied. For
`
`example, President Nixon’s 1974 budget proposal provided no increase in planning,
`
`development or operation of National Park Service-managed recreation programs, which
`
`Congressman Seiberling criticized as shortsighted because he anticipated CVNP land prices
`
`would continue to escalate.
`
`49.
`
`In 1975, Secretary of Interior Rogers Morton, who had opposed the creation of
`
`the CVNP, requested only $1 million for the CVNP land acquisition program for fiscal year
`
`1976. Certain members of Congress, however, petitioned to increase the CVNP appropriations
`
`to $5 million.
`
`50.
`
`The difficulty of acquiring land for the CVNP due to a lack of Congressional
`
`appropriations was compounded by the United States’ lack of a formal land acquisition plan.
`
`51.
`
`By statute, the Secretary of Interior was required to submit a land acquisition plan
`
`to Congress by December 27, 1975 that would provide the public with a comprehensive
`
`explanation of the intended CVNP land acquisition program. 16 U.S.C. § 460ff-2(a).
`
`52.
`
`Nevertheless, an adequate land acquisition plan was never submitted by Interior.
`
`Instead, on December 11, 1975, Interior submitted an acquisition schedule to Congress, which
`
`Congress rejected because it did not qualify as a land acquisition plan.
`
`53.
`
`In the absence of a land acquisition plan, then-CVNP Park Superintendent Bill
`
`Birdsell made decisions about which properties would be acquired by the United States in fee
`
`simple and when those property acquisitions would occur.
`
`54.
`
`By mid-1976, land prices in the Cuyahoga Valley were escalating by ten to fifteen
`
`percent (10%-15%) a year. As a result, if the CVNP was to be realized within the 6-year time
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 5:22-cv-01558-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/02/22 11 of 40. PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`period mandated by the CVNP Act, the amount of Congressional appropriations had to be
`
`increased significantly.
`
`55.
`
`By the end of President Carter’s Administration in 1980, the United States had
`
`already spent approximately $59 million on roughly 11,000 acres for the CVNP, with thousands
`
`of acres remaining to be acquired.
`
`56.
`
`In 1981, however, President Reagan’s Administration placed a moratorium on all
`
`national park land purchases.
`
`57.
`
`In addition, the new Secretary of Interior James G. Watt suggested de-authorizing
`
`national parks like CVNP and reprogramming its funds, an approach that resulted in Watt being
`
`featured in an editorial cartoon in the Akron Beacon Journal.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 5:22-cv-01558-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/02/22 12 of 40. PageID #: 12
`
`
`
`58.
`
` Secretary Watt resigned in September 1983. His replacement, William Clark,
`
`reversed the previous moratorium and requested $5 million for the CVNP for fiscal year 1984.
`
`59.
`
`As explained below, Jaite Mill was among the properties finally acquired post-
`
`moratorium in 1984 and 1985.
`
`60.
`
`By 1985, the United States had spent over $85 million to acquire approximately
`
`15,000 acres for the CVNP.
`
`Before the United States Acquired Jaite Mill, Congress Passed CERCLA
`
`61.
`
`Prior to acquiring Jaite Mill in 1984 and 1985, the United States already was
`
`aware that, to the extent Jaite Mill was contaminated, the United States would be legally
`
`obligated to investigate and remediate that contamination if it purchased Jaite Mill.
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`On December 11, 1980, Congress passed CERCLA.
`
`Under Section 107 of CERCLA, there are four (4) categories of liable parties: (i)
`
`current owners or operators of the relevant CERCLA facility, (ii) former owners or operators at
`
`the time a hazardous substance was disposed of at the relevant CERCLA facility; (iii) persons
`
`who arranged for the treatment or disposal of hazardous substances at the relevant CERCLA
`
`facility; and (iv) persons who transported hazardous substances to the relevant CERCLA facility
`
`for treatment or disposal. 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a).
`
`64.
`
`Response actions under CERCLA are classified as either “removal” actions or a
`
`“remedial” action.
`
`65.
`
`A removal action is a response that is undertaken in the short-term to monitor,
`
`assess, or abate the release of hazardous substances to the environment or the threat of release of
`
`hazardous substances to the environment. 42 U.S.C. § 9601(23). Importantly, a removal action
`
`is not a permanent remedy for environmental contamination.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 5:22-cv-01558-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/02/22 13 of 40. PageID #: 13
`
`
`
`66.
`
`In contrast, a remedial action is an action “consistent with [a] permanent remedy
`
`taken instead of or in addition to removal actions in the event of a release or threatened release of
`
`a hazardous substance into the environment, to prevent or minimize the release of hazardous
`
`substances so that they do not migrate to cause substantial danger to present or future public
`
`health or welfare or the environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 9601(24).
`
`67.
`
`To recover costs incurred to perform a removal action or a remedial action under
`
`CERCLA, the removal action or remedial action must be undertaken in a manner that is
`
`consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”).
`
`The NCP provides detailed requirements for when and how a removal action or a remedial action
`
`may be performed under CERCLA.
`
`The United States Acquired the Contaminated Krejci Dump for the CVNP and then
`Investigated and Remediated Krejci Dump Contamination
`
`By the time CERCLA was passed in 1980, the CVNP had been in existence for
`
`68.
`
`six (6) years. Beginning in 1981, the United States invited inspectors from Ohio EPA to evaluate
`
`potential environmental contamination at a nearby property known as the Krejci Dump. The
`
`Krejci Dump is a forty-seven (47) acre property that had been used as a salvage yard and
`
`disposal facility from 1948 until 1980. In 1985, the United States acquired Krejci Dump and
`
`made it part of the CVNP.
`
`69.
`
`In mid-1986, the United States received new information regarding environmental
`
`contamination at the Krejci Dump, and promptly invited Ohio EPA to conduct a full site
`
`investigation. The Krejci Dump was closed to visitors in May 1986 to ensure visitor safety and
`
`prevent resource degradation.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 5:22-cv-01558-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/02/22 14 of 40. PageID #: 14
`
`
`
`70.
`
`By June 1987, the United States had confirmed the presence of hazardous
`
`substances at Krejci Dump, and began onsite action to further investigate and remediate the
`
`contamination.
`
`71.
`
`In 1989, as a result of the substantial costs incurred by the United States at the
`
`Krejci Dump, Interior instructed the National Park Service to purchase no more lands for the
`
`CVNP with environmental contamination. Then Secretary of Interior Manuel Lujan
`
`subsequently imposed a requirement that the National Park Service would have to conduct
`
`inspections for hazardous substances before any tract of land could be purchased.
`
`The United States Intended to Acquire Jaite Mill
`and Preserve It as a Historically Significant Location
`
`Since inception of the CVNP, Jaite Mill was one of the properties the United
`
`72.
`
`States intended to acquire as part of the national park.
`
`73.
`
`As early as 1974, the United States publicly announced its intention to obtain the
`
`“box plant” (i.e., Jaite Mill) as part of the CVNP.
`
`74.
`
`On March 19, 1979, the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, an agency
`
`within Interior, nominated Jaite Mill and the surrounding unincorporated town of Jaite for The
`
`National Register of Historic Places. Jaite Mill was listed in the National Register in 1979.
`
`75.
`
`The National Register of Historic Places was established by Congress in the
`
`National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. This statute was enacted to carry out the “policy of
`
`the Federal Government to… administer federally owned, administered, or controlled property in
`
`a spirit of stewardship for the inspiration and benefit of present and future generations [and]
`
`contribute to the preservation of nonfederally owned historic property[.]” 54 U.S.C. §
`
`300101(3)-(4).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 5:22-cv-01558-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/02/22 15 of 40. PageID #: 15
`
`
`
`76.
`
`The Secretary of Interior maintains the National Register of Historic Places and
`
`may record “districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history,
`
`architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture.” Id. § 302101.
`
`77.
`
`As set out in Interior’s National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination
`
`Form, Jaite Mill and the associated Jaite company town had a special character and was one of
`
`the most important business enterprises in that section of Summit County in Ohio.
`
`78.
`
`The Jaite Mill was also recorded in the Historic American Engineering Record, a
`
`project undertaken by the National Park Service, the Library of Congress, and the American
`
`Society of Civil Engineers to “create a permanent documentary record of the nation’s
`
`engineering and industrial legacy.”
`
`The United States Knowingly Acquired Jaite Mill with Environmental Contamination
`to Keep the Purchase Price of Jaite Mill Reduced
`
`79.
`
`Prior to purchase, the United States was aware of contamination at Jaite Mill
`
`because of years-long environmental violations issued by the Ohio EPA against Jaite Mill’s then-
`
`owner and operator, TCBC.
`
`80.
`
`Acting out of its own self-interest to keep the potential purchase price for Jaite
`
`Mill deflated (and thus within Congressional appropriations), the United States interfered with
`
`demands by Ohio EPA to have TCBC timely address Jaite Mill contamination.
`
`81.
`
`Prior to TCBC’s acquisition of Jaite Mill in 1967, two (2) other companies had
`
`owned and operated the plant: Jaite Paper Company from 1905 until 1951, and National
`
`Container Corporation from 1951 until 1967.
`
`82.
`
`Paddock is the successor to National Container Corporation, but not Jaite Paper
`
`Company.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 5:22-cv-01558-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/02/22 16 of 40. PageID #: 16
`
`
`
`83.
`
`TCBC had a well-documented record of its operations causing environmental
`
`contamination at Jaite Mill.
`
`84.
`
`As early as February 1975, TCBC and the City of Akron were engaged in a
`
`dispute regarding TCBC’s wastewater effluent discharge into the Cuyahoga River.
`
`85.
`
`In July 1975, TCBC recognized the need for the company to preserve cash
`
`because of the possible shutdown of Jaite Mill by the United States, coupled with its knowledge
`
`of the environmental contamination TCBC’s operations had caused at Jaite Mill.
`
`86.
`
`In 1976, the Ohio EPA issued a notice of violation to TCBC for noncompliance
`
`with its wastewater discharge permit. This violation resulted from TCBC’s failure to maintain
`
`its wastewater treatment lagoons at Jaite Mill, which resulted in the discharge of contaminated
`
`wastewater directly into Brandywine Creek and the Cuyahoga River.
`
`87.
`
`Despite receiving this notice, on July 25, 1979, TCBC decided not to conduct a
`
`complete study of its wastewater effluent from Jaite Mill because of the cost of paying a
`
`consultant to perform the study.
`
`88.
`
`Also in 1976, TCBC became aware of its noncompliance with new air emission
`
`limits for sulfur dioxide that were imposed under the federal Clean Air Act. See 42 U.S.C. §
`
`7401 et. seq. TCBC had several conversations with USEPA in November 1976 regarding the
`
`possibility of TCBC avoiding the necessity of complying with the Clean Air Act.
`
`89.
`
`On January 24, 1977, TCBC attempted to negotiate a protracted schedule with
`
`USEPA to bring Jaite Mill into compliance with the sulfur dioxide air emission requirements.
`
`90.
`
`During those negotiations, TCBC informed USEPA that expending capital to
`
`comply with the sulfur dioxide air emission requirements ultimately would have financial
`
`consequences for the United States’ acquisition of Jaite Mill for the CVNP. Specifically, TCBC
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case: 5:22-cv-01558-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/02/22 17 of 40. PageID #: 17
`
`
`
`explained that modifications necessary to achieve the sulfur dioxide air emission requirements
`
`would increase the value of TCBC’s fixed equipment, which in turn would increase the cost to
`
`the United States of acquiring Jaite Mill for the CVNP.
`
`91.
`
`Approximately one (1) year later, on January 16, 1978, the United States
`
`inspected Jaite Mill.
`
`92.
`
`On July 13, 1979, TCBC met with CVNP Superintendent Bill Birdsell to discuss
`
`Interior’s plans to acquire Jaite Mill. During this meeting, TCBC raised its air emissions
`
`noncompliance with Birdsell as an ongoing issue.
`
`93.
`
`On December 8, 1980, USEPA ordered TCBC to pay a fine for exceedances of
`
`the sulfur dioxide emissions threshold. To settle the issue, TCBC signed a consent decree and
`
`paid a fine.
`
`94.
`
`By the end of 1980, the United States still had not purchased Jaite Mill due to the
`
`Reagan Administration’s moratorium on purchasing additional lands for national parks.
`
`95.
`
`Jaite Mill was among many properties that fell into years-long purchase
`
`negotiations between then-owners and the United States due to inconsistent federal funding and
`
`the disorganization resulting from a missing land acquisition plan for the CVNP.
`
`96.
`
`Because CVNP Superintendent Birdsell made decisions about which properties to
`
`purchase and when to purchase them for the CVNP, appraisals would be ordered years before
`
`any offer to purchase would be made, causing controversy and tension between landowners and
`
`Interior.
`
`97.
`
`On August 6, 1980, Ohio EPA conducted sampling at Jaite Mill to assess whether
`
`TCBC was complying with its wastewater discharge permit. Ohio EPA informed TCBC that
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case: 5:22-cv-01558-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/02/22 18 of 40. PageID #: 18
`
`
`
`TCBC’s improper maintenance of settling lagoons at Jaite Mill caused wastewater effluent
`
`violations.
`
`98.
`
`99.
`
`Ohio EPA directed TCBC to rectify the wastewater effluent violations.
`
`On November 4, 1981, the United States confirmed to TCBC its continued
`
`interest in purchasing Jaite Mill subject to the availability of Congressional appropriations.
`
`100.
`
`In May 1982, Ohio EPA again notified TCBC of ongoing environmental
`
`violations resulting from TCBC’s wastewater discharges at Jaite Mill.
`
`101. On July 20, 1982, the United States advised TCBC that it was ordering appraisals
`
`for certain parcels of Jaite Mill.
`
`102. On December 23, 1982, the United States filed a complaint with Ohio EPA about
`
`an oil and gas well on TCBC’s property that was leaking oily, sludge-like material into a
`
`tributary of the Cuyahoga River.
`
`103. The United States filed the complaint with Ohio EPA because it had just acquired
`
`an adjacent property for CVNP and was concerned that the poor maintenance of TCBC’s well
`
`would result in a large oil spill directly onto the United States’ property and into the Cuyahoga
`
`River.
`
`104. On February 10, 1983, the United States accompanied the Ohio Department of
`
`Natural Resources to inspect TCBC’s oil and gas well.
`
`105. The inspectors confirmed that the source of the oil contamination was a leaking
`
`tank on TCBC’s property, which was allowing waste oil and other substances to leach into the
`
`Cuyahoga River. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources issued a verbal notice of violation
`
`to TCBC and required TCBC to clean up the contamination and repair the leaking tank.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case: 5:22-cv-01558-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/02/22 19 of 40. PageID #: 19
`
`
`
`106. On March 2, 1983, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources conducted another
`
`on-site inspection of TCBC, and issued a written notice of violation to TCBC because it found
`
`that slag had been spread on top of the contamination, but TCBC had not attempted to remove
`
`the contamination or repair the leaking tank.
`
`107. TCBC did not satisfactorily clean up the contamination stemming from its oil and
`
`gas well or fix the leaking tank until May 3, 1983.
`
`108. By 1983, the United State

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket