Case 4:10-cv-00634-CKJ Document 1 Filed 10/22/10 Page 1 of 21 1 TERRY GODDARD 2 Arizona Attorney General Firm State Bar No. 14000 3 JEFFREY D. CANTRELL (017957) TAMARA L. HUDDLESTON (006890) 4 Assistant Attorney General 5 Office of the Attorney General 1275 West Washington Street 6 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926 Telephone: (602) 542-8500 7 [email protected] 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 11 State of Arizona; State of Arizona ex rel. 12 Benjamin H. Grumbles, Director, No. _________________ 13 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 14 15 Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT v. 16 Cost Recovery Under the Ashton Company, Inc.; Contractors and Comprehensive Environmental 17 Engineers; Baldor Electric Company; Response, Compensation, and Liability 18 Don Mackey Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc.; Act Dunn Edwards Corporation; Durodyne, 19 Inc.; Fersha Corporation; Fluor Declaratory Judgment 20 Corporation; General Dynamics Corporation; The Goodyear Tire and Cost Recovery Under the Arizona 21 Rubber Company and Lockheed Martin Water Quality Assurance Revolving Corporation; Holmes Tuttle Ford, Inc.; Fund 22 Industrial Pipe Fittings, LLC and 23 Tucson Foundry & Manufacturing, Inc.; Rowe Enterprises, Inc.; Pima 24 County Community College; Rollings 25 Corporation; Textron, Inc. and ABB, Inc. and Combustion Engineering, Inc.; 26 1 Case 4:10-cv-00634-CKJ Document 1 Filed 10/22/10 Page 2 of 21 1 Texas Instruments, Inc.; Tucson Dodge; 2 Inc.; and, Warner Propeller and Governor, L.L.C., 3 Defendants. 4 5 Plaintiffs State of Arizona and the State of Arizona ex rel. Benjamin H. Grumbles, 6 Director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality allege: 7 I. NATURE OF THIS ACTION 8 1. Plaintiff State of Arizona (“State”) is a sovereign state of the United States 9 of America. 10 2. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (“ADEQ”) is an agency 11 of the State and was established in 1986 pursuant to A.R.S. § 49-102(A). 12 3. On 22 June 2009, the Governor of the State of Arizona designated 13 Benjamin H. Grumbles as the Director of ADEQ. 14 4. This is a civil action brought by the State, pursuant to the Comprehensive 15 Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended 16 (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq. and pursuant to supplemental state law causes of 17 action under the Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (“WQARF”) A.R.S. § 49-281 18 et seq. This action is brought to recover necessary costs of response incurred or to be 19 incurred by Plaintiffs to respond to a Release or threat of a Release of hazardous 20 substances at and from the Broadway Pantano WQARF Registry Site #100053-00 in 21 Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. 22 5. The Broadway Pantano Landfill (“Site”), as defined herein, encompassing 23 approximately 150 acres located in east-central Tucson, Pima County, Arizona and is 24 approximately bounded by Speedway Boulevard to the north, Pantano Wash to the east, 25 Calle Madero to the south (south of Broadway Boulevard), and Craycroft Road or Kolb 26 2 Case 4:10-cv-00634-CKJ Document 1 Filed 10/22/10 Page 3 of 21 1 Avenue for the portion of the Site to the south of Broadway Boulevard and includes the 2 geographical areal extent of contamination as depicted on the map attached hereto as 3 Exhibit 1. 4 6. The Site comprises the Broadway South and Broadway North Landfills. 5 The Broadway South Landfill was operational from approximately 1953 to 1959, and the 6 Broadway North Landfill was operational from approximately 1959 to 1972. 7 7. The Broadway Pantano WWQARF Registry Site is a Site as that term is 8 defined in A.R.S. § 49-281(14) and used in 42 U.S.C. § 9601, and is also a Facility as 9 defined in 42 U.S.C. § 9601(9) and A.R.S. § 49-281(6). 10 8. During the period between 1953 and 1972, two landfills were operational at 11 the Site which accepted hazardous industrial wastes from various entities. The Site was 12 originally a “wildcat” dump and later developed into two separate landfills. The 13 Broadway South Landfill was initially operated by Pima County and then by Sanitary 14 District No. 1 of Pima County. The Broadway North Landfill was jointly operated by 15 Sanitary District No. 1 of Pima County and the City of Tucson, and later jointly operated 16 by Pima County and the City of Tucson. During this time, various hazardous wastes 17 generators arranged for those wastes to be transported to the landfills. Some of the 18 hazardous substances have migrated from the landfills and contaminated the drinking 19 water aquifer underneath the landfills. Additionally, some of the hazardous substances 20 have migrated off-site from the landfills, further spreading contamination. 21 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 22 9. This Court has exclusive and original jurisdiction over all CERCLA claims 23 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607 and 9613(b). Additionally, this Court has federal question jurisdiction 24 over the subject matter and the Parties under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1391. This Court has 25 supplemental jurisdiction over state law (WQARF A.R.S. §§ 49-285 and 49-292) claims 26 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because they arise out of a common nucleus of operative 3 Case 4:10-cv-00634-CKJ Document 1 Filed 10/22/10 Page 4 of 21 1 facts and are so related to the federal question claims that they form a part of the State’s 2 federal (CERCLA) claims. 3 10. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9613(b) (CERCLA §113(b)) and 28 U.S.C. § 4 1391(b), proper venue lies with the United States District Court for the District of 5 Arizona Tucson division because the releases of hazardous substances occurred in the 6 Pima County, Arizona. 7 11. After this action is filed, the State will mail copies of this Complaint to the 8 Attorney General of the United States and to the Administrator of the United States 9 Environmental Protection Agency, in accordance with Section 113(l) of CERCLA, 42 10 U.S.C. § 9613(l). 11 III. PLAINTIFFS 12 12. Plaintiff State of Arizona is a State of the United States of America. This 13 action has been brought on behalf of the ADEQ, and its Director, Benjamin H. Grumbles. 14 Mr. Grumbles is the duly appointed Director of ADEQ and is authorized pursuant to 15 A.R.S. §§ 49-102(B), 49-202(L), 49-287(C), and 38-211, Arizona Revised Statutes to 16 initiate this action on behalf of the State. 17 IV. DEFENDANTS 18 13. Ashton Company, Inc., Contractors and Engineers - Defendant The Ashton 19 Company, Inc., Contractors and Engineers, an Arizona corporation, operated a general contracting and construction business in Tucson, Arizona, from as early as 1957 through 20 the 1970s, during which time the Broadway South and North Landfills were operational. 21 Defendant The Ashton Company, Inc., Contractors and Engineers, owned or possessed 22 hazardous substances that contained Site contaminants of concern such as 23 trichloroethylene (“TCE”) and Tetrachloroethylene (“PCE”). A former City of Tucson 24 Sanitation Department waste hauler collected waste from The Ashton Company, Inc., 25 Contractors and Engineers, and transported the waste to the nearest landfill, including the 26 4 Case 4:10-cv-00634-CKJ Document 1 Filed 10/22/10 Page 5 of 21 1 Broadway North Landfill. The Ashton Company, Inc., Contractors and Engineers, owned 2 or possessed the hazardous substances and arranged for the disposal of those substances. 3 Therefore, it is liable as a generator pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3) and A.R.S. § 49- 4 283(A)(2). 14. Baldor Electric Company - Defendant Baldor Electric Company, an 5 Arkansas corporation, is the successor by merger to Reliance Electric Company, an Ohio 6 corporation, which was a contractor to the U.S. Air Force at the Titan II missile silos in 7 Tucson, Arizona, in the 1960s, during which time the Broadway North Landfill was 8 operational. Defendant Baldor Electric Company’s predecessor, Reliance Electric 9 Company, owned or possessed hazardous substances that contained Site contaminants of 10 concern such as TCE and PCE. A former Tucson-area solvent recycler collected waste 11 from Reliance Electric Company and transported the waste to the Broadway South and 12 North Landfills. Reliance Electric Company owned or possessed the hazardous 13 substances and arranged for the disposal of those substances. Therefore, its successor, 14 Baldor Electric Company, is liable as a generator pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3) and 15 A.R.S. § 49-283(A)(2). 16 15. Don Mackey Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc. - Defendant Don Mackey 17 Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc., a Delaware corporation, sold and maintained automobiles 18 under the name Paulin Motor Company, a Delaware corporation, in Tucson, Arizona, 19 from as early as 1952 through the early 1970s, during which time the Broadway South 20 and North Landfills were operational. Defendant Don Mackey Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc., 21 operating under the name Paulin Motor Company, owned or possessed hazardous 22 substances that contained Site contaminants of concern such as TCE, PCE, and methylene chloride. A former City of Tucson Sanitation Department waste hauler 23 collected waste from Paulin Motor Company and transported the waste to the nearest 24 landfill, including the Broadway North Landfill. Paulin Motor Company owned or 25 possessed the hazardous substances and arranged for the disposal of those substances. 26 5 Case 4:10-cv-00634-CKJ Document 1 Filed 10/22/10 Page 6 of 21 1 Therefore, its successor, Don Mackey Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc., is liable as a generator 2 pursuant to 42 U.S.C.