`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`GALVESTON DIVISION
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`__________________________________________
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`Defendants.
`__________________________________________)
`
`v.
`SEA LION CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`SEA LION, INC.,
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`3:21-cv-347
`
`COMPLAINT
`
` The United States of America, by the authority of the Attorney General of the United
`
`States, by and through the undersigned attorneys, acting at the request of the Administrator of the
`
`United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive
`
`Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a),
`
`against Defendants for the recovery of unreimbursed response costs that the United States has
`
`incurred in response to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at and from the
`
`Malone Service Company Superfund Site, located at 5300 Campbell Bayou Road in Texas City,
`
`Texas (the “Site”).
`
`2.
`
`Pursuant to CERCLA Section 113(g)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(g)(2), the United
`
`States further seeks a declaratory judgment, binding in any subsequent action by the United
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00347 Document 1 Filed on 12/15/21 in TXSD Page 2 of 7
`
`
`
`States to recover further response costs, that the Defendants are liable for future response costs
`
`incurred by the United States in connection with the Site.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to
`
`Section 113(b) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(b), and 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1345.
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 9613(b) and 28
`
`U.S.C. Sections 1391(b) and (c) and 1367 because the release or threatened release of hazardous
`
`substances that gives rise to the action occurred in this District.
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`5.
`
`Defendants Sea Lion Chemical Technology, Inc., and Sea Lion, Inc., are
`
`“persons” within the meaning of Section 101(21) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(21).
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Sea Lion, Inc. is the corporate parent of Sea Lion Chemical Technology, Inc.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`The Site encompasses approximately 150 acres near Galveston Bay and Swan
`
`Lake, approximately 1.6 miles southeast of the intersection of State Highway Loop 197 and State
`
`Highway 3, in Texas City, Texas.
`
`8.
`
`From approximately 1964 until 1996, the Malone Service Company stored and
`
`treated or disposed of hazardous substances on portions of the Site. A large number of
`
`companies sent approximately 481 million gallons (11.45 million barrels) of waste to the Site.
`
`The predecessor to the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) revoked the
`
`Malone Services Company’s permits in 1997. The Site no longer receives hazardous wastes.
`
`9.
`
`EPA listed the Site on the National Priorities List on June 14, 2001. 66 Fed. Reg.
`
`32,235, 32,238 (June 14, 2001) (Table 1). Pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00347 Document 1 Filed on 12/15/21 in TXSD Page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`signed by EPA on September 30, 2003, a group of potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”)
`
`completed the remedial investigation/feasibility study (“RI/FS”) for the Site. Based upon the
`
`RI/FS, EPA selected the “Site Remedial Action” which is documented in the Record of Decision (“the
`
`ROD”) signed on September 30, 2009.
`
`10.
`
`The EPA subsequently entered into a judicial consent decree with 103 private entities, the
`
`State of Texas, and eight federal agencies for recovery of response costs and performance of the remedy
`
`pursuant to the ROD. The decree was entered by the District Court for the Southern District of Texas on
`
`September 24, 2012 (U.S. v. Alcoa, Civ. Action No. 3:12-cv-00210, S.D. Tex.) The approximate cost
`
`of the remedial action performed at the Site was $56.4 million. It was completed in 2017.
`
`11.
`
`The hazardous substances of concern at the Site are metals, volatile organic
`
`chemicals, semi-volatile organic chemicals, dioxins, and polychlorinated biphenyls.
`
`12.
`
`Sea Lion Chemical Technology, Inc. operated a manufacturing facility in Texas
`
`City, Texas, that produced specialty chemicals, including silane products used in low rolling-
`
`resistance tire compounds, as well as hydrogen sulfide, sodium hydrogen sulfide, o-
`
`dichlorobenzene, dimethyl sulfate, hydrogen peroxide, sodium metal, sodium methoxide,
`
`pyrophoric chemicals and catalysts, epichlorohydrin, styrene, o-cresol, and concentrated
`
`hydrochloric, sulfuric and nitric acids.
`
`13.
`
`During its operations, Sea Lion Chemical Technology, Inc. generated waste
`
`materials and hazardous substances that were sent to the Site for disposal, as described in
`
`manifests and State of Texas reports, including spent process acid, corrosive and hazardous
`
`waste liquids, and spent sulfuric acid.
`
`14.
`
`The Site waste-in list estimates that Sea Lion Chemical Technology, Inc.
`
`contributed 10,189,449 gallons of wastes that were sent between 1977 and 1993.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00347 Document 1 Filed on 12/15/21 in TXSD Page 4 of 7
`
`
`
`15.
`
`Sea Lion, Inc. is the corporate parent of Sea Lion Chemical Technology, Inc. and
`
`is liable for the actions of Sea Lion Chemical Technology, Inc., as its corporate successor.
`
`16.
`
`There was a “release” or a threatened “release” within the meaning of Section
`
`101(22) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(22), of “hazardous substances” within the meaning of
`
`Section 101(14) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14), into the environment at and from the Site.
`
`17.
`
`The Site is a “facility” within the meaning of Section 101(9) of CERCLA, 42
`
`U.S.C. § 9601(9).
`
`18.
`
`EPA has incurred and will continue to incur response costs at the Site to address
`
`the release and disposal of hazardous substances at the Site.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Response Costs Under CERCLA § 107(a))
`
`19.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 – 18 are realleged and incorporated
`
`herein by reference.
`
`20.
`
`Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), provides in pertinent part as
`
`follows:
`
`subject only to the defenses set forth in subsection (b) of this section . . .
`
`(3) any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for
`disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for transport for
`disposal or treatment, of hazardous substances owned or possessed by
`such person, by any other party or entity, at any facility or incineration
`vessel owned or operated by another party or entity and containing such
`hazardous substances . . .
`from which there is a release, or a threatened release which causes the incurrence of
`response costs, of a hazardous substance, shall be liable for —
`
`
`(A) all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the
`United States Government or a State or an Indian tribe not
`inconsistent with the national contingency plan . . . .
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00347 Document 1 Filed on 12/15/21 in TXSD Page 5 of 7
`
`
`
`21.
`
`Defendants are persons, or the successors to persons, who arranged for the
`
`disposal or treatment, or the transport for disposal or treatment, of hazardous substances within
`
`the meaning of Sections 107(a)(3) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3).
`
`22.
`
`The actions taken by the United States in connection with the Site constitute
`
`“response” actions within the meaning of Section 101(25) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(25), in
`
`connection with which the United States has incurred costs.
`
`23.
`
`The costs incurred by the United States in connection with the Site are not
`
`inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan, codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 300.
`
`24.
`
`Pursuant to Section 107(a)(3) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3), Defendants
`
`are jointly and severally liable to the United States for all unreimbursed response costs incurred
`
`and to be incurred by the United States in connection with the Site, including enforcement costs
`
`and prejudgment interest.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Declaratory Judgment Under CERCLA § 113)
`
`25.
`
`The allegations in paragraphs 1 – 24 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by
`
`reference.
`
`26.
`
`CERCLA Subsection 113(g)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(g)(2), states that in any action
`
`for recovery of costs under CERCLA Section 107, 42 U.S.C. § 9607, “the court shall enter a
`
`declaratory judgment on liability for response costs . . . that will be binding on any subsequent
`
`action or actions to recover further response costs.”
`
`27.
`
`The United States will continue to incur response costs associated with the
`
`contamination at the Site, including governmental enforcement costs that are recoverable under
`
`CERCLA. The United States is entitled to entry of a declaratory judgment that each of the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00347 Document 1 Filed on 12/15/21 in TXSD Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`Defendants is jointly and severally liable to the United States for future response costs incurred
`
`in connection with the Site.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, the United States of America, prays that this Court:
`
`1.
`
`Enter judgment in favor of the United States and against Defendants, jointly and
`
`severally, for all costs, including prejudgment interest, incurred by the United States for response
`
`actions in connection with the Site and not otherwise reimbursed;
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants are liable, jointly and severally, for
`
`all future response costs incurred by the United States in connection with the Site;
`
`Award the United States its costs of this action; and
`
`Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`
`TODD KIM
`Assistant Attorney General
`Environment and Natural Resources Division
`U.S. Department of Justice
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Samuel D. Blesi
`SAMUEL D. BLESI
`Trial Attorney
`Environmental Enforcement Section
`Environment and Natural Resources Division
`U.S. Department of Justice
`
`P.O. Box 7611
`
`Washington, D.C. 20044-7611
`Telephone: 202-514-5516
`Fax: 202-514-1466
`E-mail: Sam.Blesi@usdoj.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00347 Document 1 Filed on 12/15/21 in TXSD Page 7 of 7
`
`JENNIFER B. LOWERY
`ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
`
` s/ Jimmy A. Rodriguez
`JIMMY A. RODRIGUEZ
`Senior Litigation Counsel
`Assistant United States Attorney
`Southern District of Texas
`Texas Bar No. 24037378
`Federal ID No. 572175
`1000 Louisiana, Suite 2300
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Tel: (713) 567-9532
`Fax: (713) 718 3303
`jimmy.rodriguez2@usdoj.gov
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`ANNE FOSTER
`Assistant Regional Counsel
`U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
`Region 6
`1201 Elm Street
`Dallas, TX 75270
`
`7
`
`