14_

 

 

ROSE, KLEIN MARIAS
BARRY I. GOLDMAN

State Bar No. 35946
DAVID A. ROSEN

State Bar No. 101287
801 South Grand Avenue
Suite 1800

Les Angeles,'California
(213) 626?0571

THE LAW OFFICES OF HELEN E. ZUKIN
HELEN E. ZUKIN

State Bar No. 117933

11755 Wilshire Blvd.

Suite 1400
Los Angeles,
(310) 477-5455

Attorneys for Plaintiff,
THE BRANDEIS-BARDIN INSTITUTE

~90017/4645

California 90025-1520

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

THE INSTITUTE,
a California COrporation,

?Plaintiff,


ROCKETDYNE, INC., a Delaware'
corporation; NORTH AMERICAN
AVIATION, Delaware cor-
poration; ATOMICS INTERNATION-
AL, INC., a Delaware corporah
tion; NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL
CORPORATION, a Delaware corp04
ration; ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, a Delaware corpor
ration; ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
SYSTEMS, INC a Delaware corw
porationIM 006-5 .1: Thrb-U ?5 Iq

35w! Indus-wt! Defendants.

 

 

Plaintiff alleges:





CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

NO. cv 95?8316 ABC 
THIRD-AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR.
DAMAGES TD REAL PROPERTY AND
DECLARATORY RELIEF

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

(F.R.C.P. 38(b) and Local Rule
3.4.10.1) 

1362

 

 

 

 



- orThis court has original jurisdiction pursuant to:

a.

the Comprehensiue Environmental Responser Compensation,_
and Liability Act 0f_1980, 42 U.S.C. 

the court's diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332, as
plaintiff is situated in the State of California, all de-
fendants have dual citizenship in the States of Delaware
and and the amount in controversy exceeds


the court's supplemental jurisdiction, 228 U.S.C. 1367;
the Price?AnderSOn hmendsents, 
According to 42 U.S.C. 2014(hh), ?The substantive rules
for decision in such action shall be derived from the law
of ,the state _in"which. the nuclear incident involved
occurs, unless with the

such law is inconsistent

provisionS' of .such 'section." In this -case,' the

substantive law of the State of California shall apply to

this action} and accordingly state-law causes of action

Imust be stated and adjudicated against defendants in this

federal court.

II.

Venue is proper in the Central District of California, as the

release and_damages that give rise to the claim occurred in this

district. 42 9613(b); 'The Central District of California

is also the dietrict in_which the nuclear incident took place.

42 u.s.c. 22101n)(2).





 

 

-.Plaintiff is a non~profit corporation organized and existing?
under the laws of'the State of California, with its principal place
of business in the State of California. I
I Iv.,l I
Plaintiff is informed and believes that_defendant Rocketdyne,
Inc. is a corporation, organized and existing Under the laws of the 
State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in the State
of Pennsy1vania. 
. v.

Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant North Ameri?

_can.Aviation, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under

the.laws of the State of Delaware,_with its principal place of busi-
ness in the State of 
4 VI.

Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant Atomics In?
ternational, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws_of the.State'of Delaware, with its principal place of business-
in the.State of 

II 

Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant North Ameri?

can Rockwell Corporation is a corporation organized and existing un?

'der-the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of

business in the state of 








 

 



rPlaintiff is informed and believes that defendant Rockwell In-
ternational Systems, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of
business in the State of 

Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant Rockwell

.International Corporation is a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of
business_in the State of 
I X.
Defendants, and each of them,?during all times pertinent to

this complaint, were the owners and operators of the Santa Susana

'Field Laboratory (hereinafter "facility"), located in the County of

Venture, State of_California.
xi. 

Defendants, and each of them, during all times pertinent to
this complaint, cperated.a nuclear?testing laboratory on the facili-
ty. The multiple releases of radioactive materials from the facili-
ty constitutes nuclear incidents_under 42 U.S.C. 2014(q). which
defines_nuc1ear incident as "any occurrence, including an extraordi?
nary nuclear occurrence, within the United States causing} within or
without the United States,_bodily injury, sickness, disease, or
death, or loss of or damage to property, or loss of use'of property,

arising out of or resulting from the radioactive, toxic, explosive,

or other'hazardous properties of source, special nuclear, or by-prod? 

luct material."



 

ammo-cam

10

17- 

 

 

XII .

At all times herein mentioned, defendants, and each of them,
were the agents, each of the other, acting within the course and
scope of said agency.



Plaintiff, at. all times pertinent to this complaint, ownedprope
arty-adjacent to the faCility in the County of Ventura, State of
California (hereinafter "real property?).

. . XIV:
In or about August, 199l,.defendants, and each of them, Caused
plaintiff's soil and groundwater to be tested in order to determine'

if plaintiff?s property was alSo contaminated. On or about Septem?

'ber 3, 1991, initial results of said testing revealed that plain?

tiff?s groundwater was contaminated.. Before this date, plaintiff

did not know nor could have reasonably known of any potential con-
tamination of plaintiff's property.
XV.

In return for plaintiff's having allowed defendants, and each

of them, access to drill monitoring wells on plaintiff's land, de?

fendants, and each of them, agreed on or about June 26, 1991, to

Itoll the statute of limitations on any potential claims plaintiff

might have related.to contamination of its property through June 26,

1996. Additionally, defendants, and each of them, thereafter agreed
on January 4, 1994 to toll the.statute of limitations on any poten?
tial claims plaintiff might have related to contamination of its
property through January 4, 2001.





 



OF.ACTION.AGAINST DEFENDANTS, AND
EACH OF THEM, FOR COSTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. 9607
- XVI. I
'Plaintiff repeats and realleges all of the allegations con-_
tained in.paragraphs I througthV, inclusiVe, as though said allega?
tions were set forth herein in full. I
. XVII.
Defendants, and each of them, while owning and operating facil?
ity, allowed hazardous materials, including, but not limited to tri?
?chloroethylene; mercury; biphenyls;?dicholorethyl-

ene; vinyl chloride; dioxin compounds; and radioactive tritium,

cesium, and strontium, (hereinafter, ?hazardous materials"), to be

disposed of and released into the soil, air, and groundwater. 
3

These hazardous materials have subsequently seeped into, and

Icome to be located in the soil and_groundwater of the real property.,

XIX.

As a direct result'of defendants' disposal and release of haz?
ardous materials'and the subsequent seepage into-plaintiff?s soil
and groundwater, plaintiff has-incurred response costs,_inc1uding
but not limited to the costs of retaining environmental consultants
to investigate and monitor the continuing contamination of plain-
tiff's soil and groundwater, as well as internal administratiue
costs, including but not limited to.1and appraisals and labor costs
involred in such testing of the soil and groundwater, Plaintiff has
also incurred costs of replacing water supply to the facility, as
the contamination has rendered its private groundwater wells unus?



 

~These costs are consistent with the National Contingency

able;
Plan.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST AND
. EACH- OF THEM, FDR DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER 28 U.S.C.
2201 - I I


Plaintiff repeats and realleges all of the allegations.con-
tained in paragraphs I through XV, inclusive, and paragraphs 
through XIX, inclusive,-of the first cause of action as though said
allegations were set forth herein in full.

XXI.
An actual controwersy has arisen and now exists between plain-

tiff and defendants, and each of them,_relating to liability for re-

-.sponse costs due toidefendants' disposal and.release of hazardous ma?

terials into the soil, air, and groundwater, contaminating the real
property, for which plaintiff desires a declaration of rights.
I x211;
Aideclaratory'judgment is neCessary in that plaintiff contends,
and defendants, and each of.the?, deny the folloWing: that defen-
dants, and each of them, are liable for response costs, both past

and'future, resulting from their disposal and release of hazardous

'materials into the soil, air, and groundwater, contaminating real

property: Defendants' release of hazardous materials into the soil,
air, and.groundwater, while defendants owned and operated the facil-
?ity, has already occurred, making the legal interests of the parties
real and immediate.





 





asserss_ossamaiatco

 

 



I OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS, AND

EACH OF THEM, FOR NUISANCE I

I . 
vI-Plaintiff repeats and realleges all of the,allegations con-
tained in paragraphs I through XV, inclusive{ and paragraphs XVII.
through XIX, inclusive, of the first_cause of action as though Said
allegations were_set forth herein in full. 
I I 

Defendants" release: of" hazardous substances into! soil and
groundwater, contaminating the facility and the real property, in-
terferes with.plaintiff?s use and_comfortable enjOyment of its prop?
erty. 

XXV.

Defendants' release of hazardous substances into soil, air, and
groundwater, contaminating the injurious to the en-
vironment, especially since it has become_commingled in the ground-
water. .Contaminated.groundwater obstructs the free use of property.
including exploitation of the groundwater rescurces underlying the
property, and threatens plaintiff's.use and enjoyment of the real
property into which the contaminated groundwater passes.

- 

In order to remove this threat to the-real property and abate
this nuisance, plaintiff has been forced to expend sums in excess of
this court's jurisdictional amount according to proof in connection
with the testing of soil and groundwater, and the remoVal and reme-
diation of hazardous and radioactive materials from soil_and.ground?
water.

Furthermore, plaintiff has been forced to_incur internal ad~

ministrative costs including but not limited to land appraisals and

 

plabor costs involved with such testing of the soil and groundwater,
monitoring, removal and remediation.
xxyII.

As a direct and'foreseeable result of the nuisance created.by
defendants, plaintiff has been?injured in that the real property is
contaminated and is in proximity of the-contaminated facility. Morel?v
over, plaintiff has been injured in that it has lost the use_of the
contaminated portions of the real propertyfurther.direct and foreseeable_result of the nuisance cre?

Iated by defendants, plaintiff?s private groundwater wells on real

property have become unusable. Plaintiff has been forced to expend
sums in excess of this court's jurisdictional.amount according to
proof in order to obtain municipal water._ I



Unless, defendants, and each of them, are restrained by order
of this court, it will be necessary for plaintiff to commence many-
successive actions against defendants, and each of them, to secure
compensation for damages sustained, thus requiring'a multiplicity of
suits, and plaintiff will be daily threatened aith continuing re-
lease of hazardous and radioactive materials;

I 

Unless, defendants, and each of them, are enjoined from?contine
uing to engage in nuclear testing, using, destroying, burning, and/'
or disposing of any hazardous and/or toxic materials, plaintiff will
suffer irreparable injury in that the usefulness and economic value
my


 

 



'its property will be substantially diminished, and.plaintiff will
be deprived of the comfortable enjoyment of its property.

I 

Plaintiff has no plain, speedy, or adeQuate remedy at law, and
injunctive relief is expressly authorized by California Code of Civ?
il Procedure 526 and 731; I

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS, AND

EACH OF Than, FOR PERMANENT 



Plaintiff repeats and realleges all of the allegations con-
tained in paragraphs 1 through XV, inclusive, and paragraphs XVII
through XIX, inclusive, of the first cause of action as though said-
allegations were set forth herein in full.

II .-

Defendants' release .of 'hazardous substances into soil and
groundwater, contaminating the faCility and the real property, in?
terferes with.plaintiff's use and comfortable enjoyment of its prop?
erty.



Defendants' release of hazardous substances into soil, air, and
groundwater, contaminating the real property, is injurious to the_
environment, especially since it Ihas ibecome commingled in 'the
groundwater; Contaminated groundwater ohstructs the free use of
property, including exploitationLOf the groundwater resources under- 
lying the property, and threatens plaintiff?s use and enjoyment of
the real property into which the contaminated groundwater passes.
1 



10

 

 

Lit-Jdirect and foreseeable result of'the nuisance created by
defendants, plaintiff has been injured in that the value of the real
property has been substantially reduced in an amount according to
proof. Furthermore, the real property is contaminated is "stigma-
tized" as contaminated property,_and is in proximity of the contami?
nated facilityz Moreouer, plaintiff has sustained injury in that it
is unable to use the contaminated portions of the real property.

- I 

As a further direct and foreseeable result of the nuisance cre;
ated by the defendants, plaintiff's private groundwater wells on
real-prOperty have becomeunusabler Plaintiff has been and will-be
forced to empend sums in excess of this court's jurisdictional
amount according tijroof in.order to obtain municipal water. Plain?
tiff also has been and will be forced to incur internal adminis?
trative costs including but not limited to land appraisals and labor
cost involved with the testing of the soil and groundwater.



As a further direct and foreseeable result of the nuisance Cree
ated by the defendants, plaintiff has been and will be ferced to ex?
pend sums in excess of this court?s jurisdictional amount according
to proof in connection with the testing of soil_and groundwater.

I 

Defendants' wrongful conduct, in Operating nuclear facilities,

using, destroYing, bUrning, and/or disposing of any hazardous and/or

toxic materials, unless and until enjoined and restrained by order

'of this court, will cause great and irreparable injury 

ongoing injury to the property.

12

 



\0 00 M) U1 423 LatPlaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the injuries cur?
rently being_suffered and which-are threatened, in that defendants 
will continue to test nuclear facilities.and use, destroy, burn,
and/0r dispose of hazardous and/or toxic materials, causing further
injury to real property." 

FIETH CAUSE OF DEFENDANTS, AND.

EACH OF THEM, CONTINUING TRESPASS

XL.

- Plaintiff repeats_and realleges all of the allegations con?
_tained in paragraphs I through XV, inclusive, and paragraphs XVII
through XIX, inclusive, of the first cause of aCtion as though said
allegations were set forth herein in full.

XLI.

Plaintiff, as owner of the real property, has a right to pos-

session and use of the real property.-
I 

In handling and releasing of hazardous and radioactive materi?
als, defendants, and each of them, Nere_engaged in an ultrahazardous
activity. 



Defendants, and each of them, handled and released such hazard-'
one and radioactive materials in such a manner that said hazardous
and'radioactive materials seeped from the facility into the soil,
air, and groundwater of the real property. Such seepage constituted'
and continues to constitute a continuing trespass.
I


12

 

 

~-XLIV. 

The conduct of defendants, and each of them, was such that it
knew that its conduct mould, to a substantial_certainty, result in
hazardous substanceS? seeping into the soil, air, and groundwater of
the real property. I I -


As a direct and foreseeable result of defendants' aforesaid
conduct, plaintiff has been injured in that the real property is
contaminated and is in proximity to. the contaminated facility.
Moreover,.plaintiff has sustained injury in that it has lost the use
of the contaminated portions of the real property.

XLVI.

I As a further direct and.foreseeable result.of defendants' afore-

said conduct, plaintiffis private groundwater wells on real property

have become unuSable. Plaintiff has been forced to expend sums in I

excess of this court's jurisdictional amount according to proof in

order to obtain municipal water.- Such expenditures would not be

necessary absent defendants? aforesaid conduct.


As a further direct and foreseeable result of defendants'lafore?

said conduct, plaintiff has been forced to expend sums in excess of

this court's jurisdictional amount according to proof in connection
with the testing of soil and groundwater, and the removal and
remediation of hazardous and radioactive materials from soil and
groundwater. Plaintiff has been forced to incur internal adminis?
trative costs including but not limited to land appraisal and labor'

costs involved in the testing of soil and groundwater and the.moni*'



 

sum



toring, removal and remediation.of hazardous and radioactive materi-
als from the soil and groundwater. Such expenditures would not be
necessary absent defendants' aforesaid conduCt;_


Defendants' wrongful conduct, in operating nuclear facilities,
using, destroying, burning, and/or disposing of any hazardous and/or
toxic materials, unless and until enjoined and_restrained bf order
of this court, will cause great and irreparable injury through the
ongoing injury to the property. I

XLIX.

Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the injuries cur?

rently being suffered and which are threatened, in that defendants

will continue to test nuclear facilities and use, destroy,.burn,

and/or dispose of hazardous and/or toxic materials, causing further
injury to real I I
SIXTH CAUSE or ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS, AND 
EACH OF THEM, FOR PERMANENT TRESPASS I
- L.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges all of the allegations con?
tained in paragraphs I through XV, inclusive, and paragraphs 
through XIE, inclusive, of the first cause of action as though said
allegations were set forth herein in full._

LI. I

Plaintiff, as owner of the real property, has a right to pos?
session and use of the real property. I I


I


14

 





,-28

24'

_property have become unusableLII.

'In handling.and releasing of hazardous and radioactive materi-
als, defendants, and each of them, were.engaged in an ultrahazardous
activity, I I


Defendants, and.each of them, handled and released such hazard?

ous and radioactive materials in such a manner that said-hazardous

and radioactive materials seeped from the facility into the soil and

grOundkater of the real property. Such seepage constituted.and-conf?
tinues_to constitute a permanent trespass.
I LIV.

The conduct of defendants, and each of them, was such that it
knew that its conduct would, to a substantial certainty, result in
hazardous substances' seeping into the soil and groundwater of the
real property?

LV.

'As a_direct and foreSeeable result of defendants' aforesaid
conduct, plaintiff has been injured in that the value of the_real
property has been substantially reduced in an amount according to
proof. Furthermore, the real property is contaminated, is "stigma?
tiZed" as contaminated.property, and is in.proximity of the contami?--
nated facility. Moreover, plaintiff has sustained injury in that it
has lost the use of the contaminated portions of the real property.

L-VI .

"As a further direct and foreseeable result of defendants?

'aforesaid conduct, plaintiff's private groundwater wells on real

Plaintiff has been and will be

forced to expend sums in excess of this court's jurisdictional

15

 

 ?23 
24:

_,amount according to proof in order to obtain municipal water, Such

expenditures would not be necessary'absent defendants? afbresaid

conduct. 3
I 

As a' further direct and_'foreseeahle result of defendants?
.aforesaid conduct, plaintiff Has been and will be forced to.expend
.sums in-excess of this court's jurisdictional amount according to
proof  connection with the testing of soil and groundnater;
Plaintiff also has been and will be.forced to incur internal admin?
istrative costs including but not limited to land appraisals and

labor_costs involved with the testing Of soil and groundwater. such

-expenditures would not be necessarf absent defendants' aforesaid

conduct. 11"
1 I 

. Defendants' wrongful conduct, in testing nuclear facilities,
using, destroying, burning, and/or disposing of any hasardous and/or
toxic materials, unless and until enjoined and restrained by order
of this court, will cause great and irreparable injury through the.
'ongoing in?ury to the property;

I LIX.
. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at lan for the injuries cure

rently being suffered and which are threatened, in that defendants
i

'will continue to test nuclear faCilities and use,.destroy, burn,

and/or dispose of hazardous and/or-toxic materials, causing further
injury to real property.

  





.16.

 

IN 1?0 J-SEVENTH canes OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS.
nun EACH or THEM, FOR NEGLIGENCE
_Lx.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges all of the allegations con:-

'tained in paragraphs I through XV,'inc1usive, and paragraphs XVII

through XIX, inclusive. of the first cause of action as though said

'allegations were set forth herein in full.-



During the time that defendants, and each of them. occupied the
facility, defendants so negligently maintained, controlled. managed
and operated the facility and, specifically, the handling and re-
lease of the hazardous and radioactive materials. so as to cause
contamination to the soil, air, and groundwater of the real prop--
erty. -

LXII.

In alIOWing such contamination to-occur. defendants. and each

of them. breached the Ordinary standard of care owed to plaintiff.
I I I
The contamination of the soil and groundwater of the real prOp?

erty has resulted in substantial physical injury to the real proper?

Ity and substantial diminution.in value of the real property.

inv.

As a direct and foreseeable result of defendants? negligence,
plaintiff has been injured in that the value of the real property
has been substantially reduced in an amount according to proof.
Furthermore, plaintiff has been injured in that it has lost the use

of the-contaminated portions of the real property.



l7

 

~LXV: 

As a further direct and foreseeable result of defendants? neg:
ligence, plaintiff's private groundwater'wells on real property have
become unusable. Plaintiff has been and sill be forced to expend

sums in excess of this court?s jurisdictional amount according to

?proof in order to obtain municipal water. Such expenditures would

not be necessary absent defendants? negligence.
_va1.
As a further direct and foreseeable result of defendants' neg-
ligence, plaintiff has been and will be forced to expend sums in ex?
cess of this court's jurisdictional'amount according to proof in

connection with the testing of soil and groundwater, and the removal

and remediation of hazardous and radioactive materials from soil and

groundwater. Plaintiff has been and will be forced to incur inter?
nal administrative costs including but not limited to land apprais?

als and labor costs. Such expenditures would not be necessary ab-

_sent defendants? negligence.

PLAINTIFF EIGHTH CAUSE or DEFENDANTS, AND
EACH or THEM, FOR NEGLIGENCE pan SE I
LXVII.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges all of the allegations con-

tained in paragraphs I through XV, inclusive, and paragraphs XVII

'through XIX, inclusive, of the first cause of action as though said

'allegations were set forth herein in full.

During the time defendants,.and each of them, owned and operat-

ed the facility,.various statutes, ordinances and regulations exist?



18.

 

 



regarding the handling and release of such hazardous and radioac-

?tive materials.

LXIX.
During the time defendants, and each of them, operated the fa?
cility, defendants, and eaCh of them, failed to comply with or ad-

here to the statutory duty-of care regarding the handling and re-

_lease of such hazardous and radioactive materials. Such failure to

comply _with_ the statutory' duty' of care constitutes ?negligence

per se.
LXX.

Defendants? negligence handling and release of such hazardous
and radioactive materials caused the contamination of the soil and
gr0undwater of the real property.

LXXI.

_As aldirect and foreseeable result of?defendants' negligent han?
dling and release of. such hazardous and radioactive materials,
plaintiff has been injured in that the value of the real property

has been substantially reduced in an amount according to proof.

,Furthermore, the real property is contaminated, is "stigmatized" as

contaminated.property, and is in proximity of the contaminated fa?
cility. Moreover, plaintiff has been injured in that it has lost
the use of the contaminated areas of the real property.

I 

As a-further direct and foreseeable result of defendants' neg?
ligent handling and release of such hazardous and radioactive mate-
rials,'plaintiff's private groundwater wells on real property have.
become unusable. Plaintiff has been and will be forced to expend

sums in excess of this court's jurisdictional amount according to 

19

 

-h d: to

cos-Jam

groundwater .

 

 

proof in order to obtain municipal water. Such expenditures would

not be necessary absent defendants? negligent handling and release
of such hazardous and radioactive materials.


iAs a further direct and foreseeable result of defendants'Ineg?
ligent handling and release of such hazardous and radioactive mate?
rials,_plaintiff has been and will be forced to-expend sums in ex-
cess of this Court?s jurisdiCtional amount acCording to proof in
connection with the testing of soil and groundwater; and the removal
and remediation of-hazardous and radioactive_materials from soil and
1 Plaintiff has been and will be forced to incur inter-l
nal administrative costs including but not limited.to land apprais-_
ale and labor costs. Such_expenditures would not be necesSary ab-
sent defendants' negligent handling and release of such hazardous
and radioactive materials.

NINTH CAUSE OF DEFENDANTS, 

sacs OF THEM, FOR ACTIVI-


LXXIV.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges all of the allegations con-
tained in paragraphs I through XV, inclusive, and paragraphs XVII

'through XIX, inclusive, of the.first cause of action as though said

allegations Were set forth herein in full.
I :Lxxv}
Defendants, and each of them, handled and released hazardous
and radioactive.materials. I



2D

 

 

LXXVIV
Accordingly, defendants, and each of them, in handling and re-

leasing hazardous and radioactive materials.was engaged in an ultra-

hazardous actiyity and is strictly liable for any damages caused by 

its conduct.?


In engaging in this ultrahazardous activity, defendants, and

'each of them, caused the Contamination of the soil, air,'and ground-_

?water of the real property.



The contamination of the soil, air, and groundwater of the'realii

property has resulted in substantial physical injury to the real

property and substantial diminution in value of the real property.
I -LXXIX.

As a direct and foreseeable result of defendants?-aforesaid

conduct,'plaintiff has been injured in that the value of the real

property has been substantially reduced in an amount according to.

proof. Furthermore, the real property is contaminated, is "stigma-

tized" as contaminated property, and is in.proximity of the contami-

nated facility. Moreover, plaintiff has been injured in that it has
lost the use of the contaminated areas of the real property.
I f_ 

As a further direct and foreseeable result of defendants'
aforesaid conduct, plaintiff's private groundwater-wells on real
property have become unusable. plaintiff has been and will be
forced to'expend sums in eXCess of this court's jurisdictional

amount according to proof in order to obtain municipal water. Such



21'

 

 





Ix) to r?I r?l n?a p?n a?I

 

 

expenditures would not be necessary absent defendants? aforesaid
_conduct. -


As a further direct and.foreseeable result of defendants' afore-
said conduct, plaintiff has been and will be forced to expend sums
in eXcess of this courtfs jurisdictional amount according to proof
in connection with the testing of Soil and groundwater, and the_
removal and remediation of hazardous and radioactive materials from--
soil and groundwater. Plaintiff has been and will be forced to
incur internal.administrative costs including but not limited to
land appraisals and labor Costs. Such expenditures would not be
necessary absent defendants' aforesaid conduct.

Tam CAUSE or narrow AGAINST AND .

EACH OF THEM, FOR INTENTIONAL INTEREERENCE WITH THE PRO-

SPECTIVE CIVIL ACTION BY SEOLIATION OF EVIDENCE


Plaintiff repeats and realleges all of the allegations.con<
'tained in paragraphs I through XV, inclusive, and paragraphs 

throngh XIX, inclusive, of the?first cause of action as though said.
allegations were set forth herein in full.


Defendants, and each of them, were aware that they may be lia?

?ble for their release of hazardous and radioactive materials,' De?

fendants and each of them knew of the existence of plaintiff?s
claims on account of the incidents described above and further knew
that preservation.and inspection.of documents containing information

regarding the extent of contamination on the facility and defen-



22

 



. . 
Lh_-dants' liability for such contamination would.be essential to plain-

successful prosecution of its claims.
I 

-Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that de-
fendants, and each of them, wilfully, wrongfully, and with the epe-'
cific intent to minimise plaintiff?s chances of recovering compen-
sation for the injuries described above, maliciously concealed,
lest, or destroyed the documents containing evidence regarding the
extent of contamination on the facility and defendants? liability-
for said-contaminatiOn. I I



By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has lost the opportunity

to inspect and admit as evidence in this action potential documents

demonstrating the extent of the contamination of the facility, de-

.fendants' knowledge of said contamination, and their liability for

such-contamination, These documents are necessary for the prepara-
tion and presentation of plaintiff's sees and for plaintiff?s oppor?
tunity to obtain reasonable'compensation for its loss.

As a pmoximate result of the acts of defendants described
above, plaintiff has suffered damages in that plaintiff's opportuni?
ty to obtain reasonable compensation for its damages arising from
said contamination has been significantly prejudiced.
. 
?The aforementioned acts were done willfully and maliciously,
and with intent. to. injure and oppress plaintiff, and therefore
plaintiff is entitled to exemplary and punitive damages.



23

 

 



;ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS,
AND EACH OF THEM, FOR MISREPRESENTATION AND SUPPRESSION 0?
MATERIAL FACTS 
I 
Plaintiff repeats and realleges all of the allegations con-

tained in paragraphS'I through XV, inclusive, and paragraphs XVII

'through XIX, inclusive, of the first cause of action as though.said

allegations were set forth herein in full.


Plaintiff alleges that, in addition to the above?described con4
duct of defendants, and each of them, said defendants have contin-
ually misrepresented to plaintiff and/or suppressed material facts
concerning the types of_toric substances released and/or improperly
disposed of at the facility and/or the degree of contamination of
plaintiff's environment and real property from the facility; Based

upon present knowledge and belief,'p1aintiff alleges that defen-

.dants, and each of them, misrepresented to the plaintiff and/or sup?'

pressed material facts concerning the release and/or improper dis?

_posal of toxic substance, which misrepresentation and suppression

include} but are not limited to, the following acts, or failures to
act:

A. On or about March was released from
the Nuclear Reactor contaminating the containment room and cer?
tain operating staff.

B.- On or about July, 1959, a partial meltdown occurred in the
SRE Nuclear Reactor resulting in the release in excess of 10,000

Curies of radiation. Radioactive contaminated sodium cOolant was



24

 

. 

Nb.) o?I r?II?d r? u?I- u?n

 

 



a .
.
.

disposed in sodium burn pits which resulted in the release of

radioactive gas into the surrounding atmosphere and soil.

C. In or about the early 1960?s, approximately gallons
of radioactive waste water was released by ROCKWELL into the leach
field, which contamination was not cleaned up until 1978.

in. 'In or about 1964, a Nuclear Reactor suffered a fuel clad~
ding melting in approximately 80% of the fuel rods resulting in the
release of various fission prOducts into the atmosphere.

E. 'In or about 1969, a Nuclear Reactor suffered a fuel clad-
ding melting in approximately 80% of the fuel rods resulting in the
release of various fission products into the atmosphere1 -

F. 'On or about May_19, 1951, a sodium fire occurred reenlting I
in the release of_radioactive gas into the atmosphere. 

G. On or about February 14, 1975, ROCKWELL discovered that a
leach field had beenvdraining contaminated water at a rate 'of
25 gallons per hour for a period of 5 days.

On or about July 29, 1975, a fire occurred during the pro?

cessing of a.13dioactive fuel slug resulting in the release of

-radioactive contamination into the atmo3phere.

I. On or about January'2b, 1979, ROCKWELL discovered elevated

'concentrations of radioactivity in_the water of a retention pond.

'Although ROCKWELL determined that the probable cause of the elevated

radioactivity was an "accidental release," heavy rainfall_forced
ROCKWELL to pump the retention pond releasing water into a creek
running through the Bell Canyon residential community.

J.I. In or about May, 1989, Richard Schwartz, then president of-
ROCKETDYNE, represented.that "no radioactive or chemical contamina?

tion has ever been found off?site on the ground, in the ground or in1

25

 

the water near our Santa Susana facility,? and that "groundwater
tests conducted on-site have revealed no radioactive. Contamination. 

K, Despite the foregoing representations, it was not until
May, 1989, that ROCKETDYNE first disclosed to any federal or state
agencies that ROCKETDYNE operated a hazardous material waste dump,
identified as the Sodium Burn Pit, at the Plaintiff is pres?
ently informed and helieves that the Sodium Burn Pit was used by
ROCKETDYNE from the early 1968's to 1978, and ROCKETDYNE has had'
actual knowledge of contamination at the Sodium.Burn Pit since 1978.

L. Despite the foregoing representations, it was not until

'May of 1989 that ROCKETDYNE first disclosed to any federal or state

agencies that employs a process of shooting bullets into
unlabeled canisters containing hazardous waste materials, which.pro-
Cess has.been in place since approximately 1969:

On-or about July, 1989, the United States Environmental
Protestion.hgency (hereinafter conducted a review of ROCKWELL
Environmental Reports. The EPA noted as follows:

1. ROCKWELL lab personnel analyze soil for gross
Jalpha and beta radioactivity, which procedure_is-ineffec-
tive in assessing environmental radioactivity;

2. ROCKWELL lab personnel heat soil samples in.a
muffle furnace for 8 hours at 500 degrees C, which.process
volatilizes most man-made radionuclides;

ROCKWELL lab personnel use inappropriate "coun-I
ters" to determine gross alpha and beta radioactivity in
water samples, which process produces invalid results;

ROCKWELL lab personnel wash and heat vegetation

samples prior to counting, which processes either removes'

26

 

any contamination from the sample; or volatizes any pres??

'ent radionuclides; and

5; I ROCKWELL never collected soil or water samples_
to be analyzed for Tritium, a radioactive isotope of"
Hydrogenresult of the foregoing conduct by ROCKWELL personnel, the EPA
concluded that "Rocketdyne does not have a good ?handle' on where
radiation has been inadvertently or intentionally dnnped onsite.?

N. 'On or about-July 21 and 26, 1994. certain ROCKWELL employ-
ees conducted a series of "burns" at an open air test site at the
Santa_Susana Field Laboratory. -"Burns" are a process of 
or exploding energetic daterials.'

o. On or'about July 25,?1994, certain ROCKWELL employees'were

killed when certain energetic materials, including, but not limited

.to, Triaminoguanidine Nitrate detonated and exploded,

P. Immediately following the July 26, l994, explosion, 
WELL represented that the purpose of the burns was to conduct tests.
However} and in direct_contradiotion to its representation, ROCKWELL
has agreed, and formally stip?lated, to the following:
i. ROCKWELL has been unable to locate any recorded
test data associated with the burns or to_establish that
the test instruments at the site_were in fact functioning
1 during the burns; 
.2. On July 21 and 26, 1994, ROCKWELL did not have
the permit required by RCRA to dispose of TAGN, which was
_a hazardous waste; and I



I 2.7

 

-.?That one or more ROCKWELL employees knowingly
disposed of_the TAGN on July 21 and 26, 1994 without a
permit.

As a result of the foregoing, on or.about April 5, 1996, ROCKWELL

'entered into a Plea Agreement Whereby?ROCKWELL_plead guilty to three

counts of felony disposal and storage and further agreed to

a fine of $6,500,000.00 to be.imposed as a result of the foregoing

actions} Indeed, on or about April 11, 1996, the United States Dis-

trict Court for the Central-District of California; the Honorable

Mariana R. Pfaelzer presiding, accepted ROOKWELL's plea of guilty.
XC. 

The foregoing, among other, misrepresentations and/or suppres-
sion of material.facts by defendants, and each of them, were per;
formed nith the intent to induce the plaintiff to refrain from ac-
tion in reliance upon defendants' wrongful conduct.

XCI.I

Plaintiff justifiably relied upon the misrepresentations made
by defendants and/or was unaware of the suppression of materiall
facts by defendants and as_a result of said defendants? wrongful
conduct, plaintiff refrained from taking action to protect itself
and its environment from contamination.-



Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the
.above-desCribed conduct of the defendants, and each of them, plain:
tiff suffered the grave and serious type of damages and contamina-
tion as previously alleged in:this-complaint.




235

 

pThe aforementioned acts of defendants were willful, wanton, ma?
licious, and oppressive, and, where permitted by_law, justify the,
awarding of eremplary and/or punitive damages in an amount suffi?
cient to punish defendants. I
CAUSE OF-ACTION AGAINST 
AND EACH OF THEM. FOR MANUFACTURE I I
XCIV.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges all of the allegations con-

tained in paragraphs I through XV, inclusive, and paragraphs_XVII

through XIX, inclusive, of the first cause of action as though said
allegations were set forth herein in full.
_xcv.
Defendants, and each of them, negligently, carelessly, and un?
lawfully'owned, leased, sold, operatedq manufactured, installed, re?

paired, constructed, designed,_serviced, and maintained the nuclear_

.reactors and/or other structures housing.radioactive materials lo?

cated on the facility. ISaid nuclear reactors, rocket engines, and/

or rocket testing equipment and their component parts were designed,

?manufactured, and sold.by defendants, and each of them, to other en-

tities, thereby being placed on the market and into the stream of
commerce. Defendants, and each of them, were normally engaged in_

the business.of designing, manufacturing, and selling said nuclear

reactors, rocket engines, and/or rocket testing equipment and their'

component parts. Such conduct resulted in the multiple releases of
radioactive materials, resulting in injuries and damages to plain-
tiff which are hereinafter set forth.



29

 



.XCVIL 
As a direct and foreseeable result of defendants? aforesaid
conduct, plaintiff has been injured,_in that the value of the real
property has been substantially reduced in an amount according to

proof. Furthermore, the real property is contaminated, is "stigma-

tized" as contaminated.property, and is in proximity to the contami?

nated facility. Moreover, plaintiff has sustained injury, in that
it has lost the use of the contaminated portions of the real prop--
erty. I I I
XCVII. I

'As a further, direct, and foreseeable result of defendants'
aforesaid conduct, plaintiff's private groundwater wells on real
property hare become unusable.- Plaintiff has been forced to expend
sums in order to_0btain municipal water. .Such expenditures would
not have been necessary but for.defendantsi aforesaid conduct.

I I 

As a further, direct, and foreseeable result of defendants'

aforesaid conduct, plaintiff has been, and.will be, forced to expend 

sums according to proof in connection.with the testing of soil, air,

'and groundwater and the_removal and remediation of radioactive mate-

rials from the soil, air, and groundwater. Plaintiff has been, and

'will be, forced to incur internal administrative costs, including

but not limited to land appraisal and labor costs involved in the
testing of soil, air, and groundwater and the removal and remedia-
tion of'radioactive materials from the soil, air, and groundwater.

Such expenditures would not have been necesSary but for defendants'

-aforesaid conduct;



30

 

 

 



THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS,

AND EACH or THEM, FOR STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY

XCIX .
Plaintiff repeats and realleges all of the allegations con-'
tained in paragraphs I through XV, inclusive, and paragraphs XVII

through XIX, inclusive, of the first cause of action as though said
allegations were set forth herein in full.

In connection.with.the design, engineering, manufacture, assem?-
bly, distribution, installation, sale, rental, supply, lease, deliv?
ery, labeling, modiinng, maintenance, and repair of said nuclear

reactors and.their component parts, said nuclear_reaotors_and their

component parts contained defects of design and manufacture which

were known to defendants, and each of them, or which should have

been known to them in_the exercise of reasonable care. Said nuclear

reactors, rocket engines, and/or rocket testing equipment and their.

component parts and sold by defendants,

and each of them, to other entities, thereby being placed on the.
market and into the stream of Commerce; Defendants,-and-each of
them, were normally engaged in the business of designing, manufac-
turing, and selling said nuclear reactors, rocket engines, and?or
rocket-testing equipment and their component parts. As a sole, di-
rect, and proXimate result of the existence of said defects, said
defects caused the multiple releases of radioactive materials, re-
sulting in injuries and.damages as more fully set forth hereinbelow.
I -CI.

xAs ac?irect and.foreseeable'result of defendants' aforesaid.con-

duct, plaintiff has been injured, in that the value of the real

31~

 

 

.property has been substantially reduced in an amount according to

proof. Furthermore, the real property is contaminated, is "stigma?

tized? as contaminated.property, and is in proximity to the contami-

-nated facility. Moreover, plaintiff has sustained injury, in that

it has lost the use of the contaminated portions of the real prop-
erty. I I
I CII.

As a further, direct, and foreseeable_result_of defendants'
aforesaid'conduct, private groundwater wells on real
property have become unusable. Plaintiff has been.forced to expend
sums in order to obtain municipal water. Such expenditures would
not have been necessary but for defendants' aforesaid-c0ndUct.

I I 

As a further, direct, and foreseeable result of defendants'
aforesaid conduct, plaintiff has been, and will be, forced to expend
sums according to proof in connection with the testing of soil, air,
and.groundwater and the removal and remediation of radioactive mate-
rials and/or hazardous materials from the soil, air, and ground-
water. Plaintiff has been, and will be, forced to incur internal
administrative costs, including but not limited to land appraisal
and labor costs involved in the testing of soil, air, and ground-
water and the removal and remediation_of radioactive materials from
the soil, air, and groundwater. Such expenditures would not have
been neceSSary but for defendants' aforesaid conduct.








.32 

 

~o co ax kn.-Auf

10


'12511333 01: ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS,
AND EACH 03 FOR OF WARRANTY 


'Plaintiff repeats and realleges all of the allegations con-

'tained in ?aragraphs I through XV, inclusive, and paragraphs XVII

through Xli, inclusi?e, of the first cause.of action as though said
allegations were-set- forth her-sin in full. I 
a CV.
Defendants, and'each of them, at all relevant time periods,_
were engaged in the design, engineering,_building, construction,
erecting, assembly, packaging, labeling, manufacture, installation,

maintenance, repair, modifying, servicing, fixing, leasing, Sale,

'supply, distribution, and delivery of certain products to third

parties whiCh inelude, but are not limited to, the United States De?

partment of Energy. Specifically, such products include, but are

'not limited to, the followings

A, Nuclear reactors;
B. "Rocket engines and/or rOCket testing equipment;

and their_component parts;

'Nuclear generated energy;'

E, TConponent parts of nuclear reactors;

E. I Fuel elements for nuclear reactors;

.Structures housing radioactive materials;\
Plutonium Fuel; 1-. I
Uranium Carbide Fuel;

I. livarious chemicals; I

J. - Various chemical by-products; and

.33.

 

 

 O0 N1 0? '43- DJ 

Ix.) l?i.H b?th-I l?I butt?Technology and training procedures in the fabrica*

tion, use, development, operation, and maintenance

of nuclear reactors.

In connection with the design, engineering, building, construction,

-erecting, assembly, packaging, labeling, manufacture, installation,_

maintenance, repair, modifying, servicing, firing, leasing, sale,

supply, distribution, and delivery of the foregoing subject prodj-

ucts, defendants, and each of them, did represent and warrant, both I

expressly and impliedly, that said products were fit and proper for
the uses and purposes for which they were intended. Said represen?
tations and warranties were, in fact, false and untrue, in that said
products allowed.the multiple releases of radioactive materials, re;
sulting in injuries and damages as set forth hereinbelow..

an.

As a direct and foreseeable result of defendants' aforesaid

conduct, plaintiff has been injured, in that the value of the real'

property-has been substantially reduced in an amount according to

-proof. Furthermore, the real property is contaminated, and is in

proximity to the contaminated-facility.
sustained injury, in that it has lost the use of the contaminated
portions of the real property. -

As a further, direct, and foreseeable result of defendants*

aforesaid conduct, plaintiff's private groundwater wells on real

property have become unusable. Plaintiff has been forced to espend'

sums in order to obtain municipal water. Such expenditures would

not have-been necessary but for defendants?_aforesaid conduct.



34

 

Moreover, plaintiff has

 



t?I t?t u?A bur-l H. p?t r?I l?l 



?scoording to.proof;

 

 


II

.c -



As a further, direct, and foreseeable result of.defendants?

aforesaid conduct, plaintiff has been, and will be, forced_to expend

'sums according to proof in connection with'the testing of soil, air,

and groundwater and the removal and remediation of radioactive mate-
rials from the soil, air, and groundwater. Plaintiff has been, and
will'be, forced to incur internal administrative costs, including
but not limited to land appraisal and labor costs involved in the
testing of soil, air, and groundwater and the removal and remediae
tion of hazardous materials from the

soil, air, and_groundwater. Such expenditures would not have been

Inecessary but for defendants' aforesaid conduct.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff praYs for.judgement against defendants,
and each of them, as follows: 

-On its first.cause of action:

1. For response coSts in an amount in excess of $50,000 or

2. _For'prejudgment interest from the date of the expenditures

concerned;
3. .For costs of this action;'and
4. For such other and fUrther'relief as the court deems just

and proper.

On its second cause of action:

That the court declare plaintiff's and.defendantsf respec-
tive rights and duties as to liability for future response costs re?
sulting disposal and release of hazardous substanc-
es and their subsequent seepages into the soil and groundwater of:

the real property; and

35

 



For such other and fUrther relief as the court deems just
and proper.

On its third and fifth'causes of action:

1. For damages in an amount according to proof, including,
but not limited to:'
a. costs incurred-for testing of soil and groundwater
and removal and remediation of the contamination of the soil and
grOundwater.of the real propertf, including but not limited to land

appraisals and labor costs;

b. . loss.of use of plaintiff's real property;
0. lost profits; I
d. costs-incurred for the provision of municipal water;
and I I I
For prejudgment interest on all damages, according to law;
and I
I 3. For costs of_this action; and
4. For a court-order requiring defendants to stop all activi?

ties in the nature of nuclear.testing, using, destroying, burning,

and/or disposing of any hazardous and toxic_materials on the.facili?

ty; and

5. For a court order requiring defendants to properly and
-lawfully engage in complete and timely remediation of the hazardous -
materials on defendants' property in full compliance with all appli-
cable State and Federal guidelines, regulations, statutes, and laws
to the satisfaction of the State and Federal regulatory agencies and

authorities with jurisdiction over_the facility; and

-6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems.just

and proper.

36'

 



IN) I?b' - I--oo'-its fourth and sixth causes of actioni

1. For damages in an amount according to proof, including,

but not limited to:

costs incurred and to be incurred.for testing of soilf

and groundwater and removal and remediation of the contamination of

- the_soil and groundwater of the real_property, including but not

limited to land appraisals and labor costs;
b. diminution in value of the real property;
c, loss of use of real property;-
d. lost profits;
e. 'costs incurred and to be incurred for the provision

of municipal water;

2. For prejudgment interest on all damages, according to law;
-3. For costs of this action; and
4. For a court order requiring defendants to stop all activi-'

ties in the nature of nuclear testing, using, destroying, burning,

and/or disposing of any hazardous and toxic materials on the.facili-

"ty; and

5. For such other and further relief as the_Court deems just

and-proper.
On its seventh through ninth and twelfth through four-'

iteenth causes of-actioni

For damages in an amount according to proof, including,-

but not limited to:

a I 3. costs incurred and to be incurred for testing of soil
and groundwater and removal and remediation of the contamination of
the soil and groundwater of the real property, including but not

limited-to land appraisals and labor costs;

37

 

p?n
(.



.Ias.La ,h u? 


?r?dimipution in'?a1Ue of the real property;
loss of use of real property; I I
..1ost'profite; I
e. coetsvi?ourrediand_to be incurred for the provision

'of municipal water;*

FOrjprejudgment interest-on all damages, according to law;
3. _For co?ts of_this aetioh; and
4. For such other and relief as the Court deems just

and proper.
I Oniits teeth and eleventh causes of aetioa:
1. ,For compenaatory da?ages'according to proof;
2; 'For punitive damages; I
3. I For prejuogment ihterest.on.all damages, accordin? to law;
For costs Of this I 
51 9 For such other and further relief as the.Court deems just
and proper. I I

DATED: June-6, 1996 

  

 

David.A. Rosen
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
THE INSTITUTE

LAWIIOFFICES OF HELEN E. ZUKIN .

1? gfelen E: Zukin 
A torneys. 0r Plaintiff,

THE BRANDEIS-BARDIN INSTITUTE

June[, 1996

 




33

 

l?L

~o m: as 01 Ln'Lh-h? u: [0 pp :3 \c aa_-FOR JURT TRIAL

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil-Prdcedure {Rule 38(b)) and.

Local plaintiff hereby_d?mands a jury trial in the

abov?4entit1ed'action.
Jun?'



June 1996"'

1996'"

39

 MAW

KLEIN MARIAS

 
  

David A- Ros?n
Attorneys for Plaintiff,

INSTITUTE

LAW OFFICES OF HELEN-E. ZUKIE

E. Zukin
Attorneys f0 Plaintiff,
THE INSTITUTE