PITTSBURGH – The state’s Department of Environmental Protection is looking to recoup more than $2 million in costs, from a remediation and removal process it undertook and completed to remove chemical and other hazardous substances from a Rochester warehouse property.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania – Department of Environmental Protection filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on May 25 versus One Brewery Place of Rochester, Harold B. Davidson of Ellwood City, James Randy Davidson of Dover, Fla., M. Ultra Investment Group, Ltd. of Georgetown and Arxada, LLC, of Williamsport.
“This is a civil action for the recovery from defendants of response costs and applicable interest incurred by the Department in responding to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at or from the former Swimming Pool Doctor site. The Department brings this action pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 and pursuant to environmental statutes and common law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act, the Solid Waste Management Act, the Clean Streams Law and Section 1917-A of the Administrative Code of 1929,” the suit says.
“The Department is the executive agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with the duty and authority to administer and enforce CERCLA and the environmental laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including but not limited to, the HSCA, the SWMA and the CSL.”
The suit adds that industrial chemicals and other hazardous substances were allegedly disposed of in an improper fashion, and remained on the site. Their removal necessitated the plaintiffs undertaking that remediation process, with a seven-figure price tag.
“The site is a 1.12-acre property containing warehouses located in Rochester, Beaver County, Pennsylvania. The site is the location of the former Swimming Pool Doctor facility. Site operations involved chemicals used for swimming pool maintenance, machinery solvents, and other industrial chemicals that were over time abandoned and illegally disposed of, including chlorine, bonderite and hydantoin,” the suit states.
“The Department investigated the site and found at the site a release and threatened release of hazardous substances. The Department conducted response actions at the site to remediate the release and threatened release of hazardous substances. The Department has incurred response costs in excess of $2.4 million as the result of its investigation and remediation of the release and threatened release of hazardous substances at the site.”
For counts of recovery of response costs and applicable interest pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, recovery of response costs and applicable interest pursuant to Sections 507(a), 507(b), 701 and 702 of HSCA, recovery of response costs and applicable interest pursuant to Sections 507(A), 1101 and 1108 of HSCA, recovery of response costs and applicable interest pursuant to Sections 601, 610 and 613 of the SWMA, recovery of response costs and applicable interest pursuant to Sections 3, 316, 401, 503, 601, 602, 605 and 611 of the CSL and recovery of response costs and applicable interest pursuant to Section 1917-A of the Administrative Code, the plaintiff is seeking, jointly and severally, a judgment in favor of the Department, for all response and nuisance abatement costs incurred by the Department at the Site together with applicable interest, costs, fees and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by Edward S. Stokan and Tyra Oliver of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania – Department of Environmental Protection’s Southwest Office of Chief Counsel, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants have not yet obtained legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-00873
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com