NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
)
Technologies Automotive, Inc., )
as successor to Preferred Technical Group, )
Inc., and LDW Development, LLC )
)
EMERGENCY MOTION TO REMAND
Rodney L. Michael, Jr., Attorney No. 23681-49
Benjamin A. Wolowski, Attorney No. 33733-49
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14 filed 06/29/20
page 1 of 17
1
I. Introduction.
The Raytheon Defendants have conceded that the claims of 77
individual Plaintiffs, other
than the Town of Andrews, Indiana, should be remanded to state
court. [See DE #13, at 22–24.]
This case should be promptly remanded—in its entirety—because this
Court has no subject
matter jurisdiction over any part of this case. The Raytheon
Defendants’ arguments that no
emergency exists is simply incorrect, as explained below, but
should have been made to the state
court during the hearing scheduled for June 25, 2020. By scheduling
a hearing on an expedited
basis, the state court demonstrated its willingness to rapidly
consider these issues.1
The Raytheon Defendants argue that because the Plaintiffs in this
matter seek injunctive
relief—a clean-up order—similar in nature to the plaintiffs in
Millman v. Raytheon Technologies
Corp., No. 1:16-cv-312-HAB-SLC, their state law claims must be a
“repackaged” RCRA claim.
But injunctive relief to clean up contamination is not unique to
RCRA. Any or all of the
Plaintiffs’ six substantive state-law claims could entitle them to
injunctive relief in state court.
Indiana courts have long recognized that “[t]he trial court has
full discretion to fashion equitable
remedies that are complete and fair to all parties involved.”
Hammes v. Frank, 579 N.E.2d 1348,
1355 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991).
And even if the Raytheon Defendants were somehow correct that
injunctive relief were
not available under the Plaintiffs’ ELA, nuisance, negligence, or
trespass claims brought against
them, the result would be that Plaintiffs would simply not obtain
relief; it would not create
federal jurisdiction out of thin air. The Raytheon Defendants’
attempt to shoehorn this purely
state-law claim into the exceedingly narrow exception recognized by
Grable & Sons Metal
Prod., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005), is
off-base, as other courts have
1 Plaintiffs greatly appreciate this Court’s expedited briefing
schedule on this motion to remand.
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14 filed 06/29/20
page 2 of 17
2
correctly recognized that state-law causes of action that even more
directly relate to RCRA, such
as a negligence per se suit predicated on a violation of RCRA, do
not involve the type of federal
issue contemplated by Grable.
Because there is no federal question raised by Plaintiffs’
state-law claims, this Court is
without subject matter jurisdiction. And because the Raytheon
Defendants had no objectively
reasonable basis for removing this case, Plaintiffs should be
awarded fees for their Emergency
Motion to Remand.2
II. Reply to the Raytheon Defendants’ Factual and Procedural
Assertions.
The Raytheon Defendants dedicate a significant portion of their
opposition brief to
challenging the merits of the Town’s Emergency Motion for
Preliminary Injunction filed prior to
removal. [See DE #13, at 1–9.] The Raytheon Defendants blame,
deflect, and omit key facts.
This argument has no bearing on the matter of this Court’s
jurisdiction. However, Plaintiffs
would offer four brief points of clarification in reply.
First, it is audacious that the Raytheon Defendants would blame the
Town for the present
crisis when its residents have been forced for 27 years to drink
from wells sitting in a pool of the
Raytheon Defendants’ toxic chemicals. [See DE #13, at 7–8 (blaming
the Town for not
upgrading MW-2 and MW-3.)] Had the Raytheon Defendants not polluted
the Town’s drinking
water aquifer—or had they timely cleaned up their mess over the
past three decades—the Town
would have clean water so as to be able to use all three of their
municipal wells. This is a
problem of the Raytheon Defendants’ own making, not the
Town’s.
Second, notably absent from the Raytheon Defendants’ statement of
facts is any mention
2 Plaintiffs respond to Raytheon Technologies Corp.’s additional
Motion to Sever the Town of Andrews’
Injunctive Relief Claim and (2) Consolidate with Millman-Powell,
Docket Entry #12, in a separate brief
filed contemporaneously with this reply brief.
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14 filed 06/29/20
page 3 of 17
3
of the fact that just six days ago, on June 23, 2020, vinyl
chloride (“VC”) was detected at the
maximum contaminant level of 2.0 µg/L in the Town’s finished
drinking water. [DE 8–5, at ¶ 8.]
This is not safe, and IDEM has demanded the Town to flush the
entire system before anyone
drink this water. (Ex. #1, at 2.) The Raytheon Defendants ignore
that their VC made it through
the air stripper and reached end users’ drinking water. Yet they
stick to their narrative that “for
25 years the drinking water has always been safe,” [DE #13, at 2],
which is just not true.
Third, although the most recent samples taken on June 27, 2020, did
not show VC above
the detection limits (see Ex. #2, at 5), this is not surprising,
given that: (1) on Friday and
Saturday, June 26 and June 27, the Town flushed its water lines to
remove residual VC; and (2)
WH-1, the most contaminated well, remains out of service.3 And WH-2
and WH-3
(contaminated with lower levels of VC) remain insufficient to meet
the Town’s water needs. The
Town is certainly thankful that Raytheon has agreed to temporarily
provide water tanks for the
Town’s fire department [see DE #13, at 9], but this will only last
for 14 days, and in two weeks
the Town’s ability to fight fires will again be seriously
compromised.
Finally, with respect to Millman v. Raytheon Technologies Corp.,
No. 1:16-cv-312-HAB-
SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Raytheon Defendants omit from their brief that
Ms. Millman’s initial action
was filed in Huntington County Circuit Court, and removed to this
Court on the basis of the
Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). This presents a
significant distinction, in that at
the time of Millman’s removal, there was unquestionably federal
subject matter jurisdiction, and
the dispute over Ms. Millman’s motion to remand was whether the
local controversy exception
applied, warranting remand. See Millman v. United Techs. Corp., No.
1:16-CV-312-PPS-SLC,
3 The most recent sampling results continue to show cis-1,2
dichloroethylene in the Town’s finished
water, indicating again that the air stripper—even when
operating—is not removing all of the Raytheon
Defendants’ chlorinated solvents. (See Ex. #2, at 5.)
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14 filed 06/29/20
page 4 of 17
4
2017 WL 1165081, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 28, 2017). Here, however,
there is no federal court
jurisdiction, as discussed below.
III. Reply Argument: This Case Does Not Present Any Federal
Question.
Significantly, the Raytheon Defendants have concededed that there
is no federal
jurisdiction over any of the claims pled by the 77 individual
Plaintiffs, but continue to
erroneously assert that this court has jurisdiction to consider the
Town’s request for injunctive
relief. As discussed below, RDs are mistaken.4
Only a “slim,” “special and small” class of cases warrant federal
question jurisdiction
absent a federally created cause of action, Gunn v. Minton, 568
U.S. 251, 258 (2013). “District
courts in the Seventh Circuit have been similarly conservative in
their application of Grable,
particularly where federal law is merely the source of a duty under
state law.” Giles v. Chicago
Drum, Inc., 631 F. Supp. 2d 981, 986 (N.D. Ill. 2009). The Raytheon
Defendants fail to seriously
address the exceedingly high bar that the Supreme Court has set for
them. At no point are they
able to coherently articulate how a complaint, comprised entirely
of state-law causes of action,
“necessarily raise[s] a stated federal issue.” They erroneously
contend that Plaintiffs’ single
reference to an “imminent and substantial endangerment,” along with
their request for injunctive
relief, should convert their state-law claims into a RCRA citizens’
suit. However, as discussed
below, they are incorrect on each point, and this case should be
remanded to state court.
A. Millman Has No Bearing On Whether This Case Presents a
Federal
Question.
The Raytheon Defendants argue that this case is “improperly”
seeking the same type of
injunctive relief sought—a mandatory clean-up order—as the
plaintiffs in Millman, and that
4 As discussed in Plaintiffs’ response to Raytheon’s motion to
sever and consolidate, the Raytheon
Defendants do not seek to sever any of the Town’s claims, but only
one form of relief (injunction). This is
not proper or permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(2).
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14 filed 06/29/20
page 5 of 17
5
somehow, this creates a federal question here. This argument is
baseless.
First, there is nothing improper about the Plaintiffs in this case
seeking a clean-up order
as part of their individual claims. As the Court is aware, Millman
was initially filed as a putative
class action. Plaintiffs in this case were, accordingly, putative
class members in Millman until the
Court denied class certification on November 18, 2019.
At that point, Plaintiffs’ next option was to proceed just as they
have, by pursuing relief
through an individual lawsuit. In Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v.
Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 354 (1983),
the United States Supreme Court explained that following denial of
class certification, “class
members may choose to file their own suits or to intervene as
plaintiffs in the pending action.”
Plaintiffs in this case—none of whom are plaintiffs in Millman—have
chosen the former
approach. Each of the Plaintiffs possesses their own right to bring
their own claims against the
Defendants to seek redress for their injuries—both in the form of
money damages and to seek a
clean-up of the Defendants’ contamination. The fact that this may
overlap with the relief sought
by the Millman plaintiffs does not impact whether this Court has
jurisdiction over the Asher
Plaintiffs’ claims.
B. The Single, Prefatory Reference in the Complaint to
Defendants’
Contamination Constituting an “Imminent and Substantial
Endangerment”
Does Not Indicate Artful Pleading of a RCRA Citizens’ Suit.
As in their Notice of Removal [see DE #1, at ¶¶ 7, 14], the
Raytheon Defendants have
again emphasized the fact that in the very first numbered paragraph
of Plaintiffs’ complaint, they
used the phrase “imminent and substantial endangerment,” a term
used in RCRA’s citizens’ suit
provision, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B). [DE #13, at 11–12; see also
DE #10, at ¶ 1.] The Raytheon
Defendants contend this “parrot[ing]” of § 6972 demonstrates that
Plaintiffs have artfully pled a
RCRA citizens’ suit. [DE #13, at 11–12]. More than these four words
are required to plead a
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14 filed 06/29/20
page 6 of 17
6
RCRA citizens’ suit.
Defendants offer no case law to support their argument. Moreover,
the case law actually
considering references to RCRA in state court complaints uniformly
holds that even more direct
references—such as a claim of civil conspiracy based on RCRA
violations—does not raise a
federal question. Giles, 631 F. Supp. 2d at 986; see also
Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. Meritor, Inc.,
No. 4:17CV74-SA-JMV, 2018 WL 1309722, at *4 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 13,
2018) (“The meaning of
certain RCRA terms and duties governing Defendant’s conduct, such
as ‘compliance schedule,’
or ‘corrective action program,’ may serve as evidence to assist a
trier of fact, but contemplating
the impact of such terms is not paramount in determining liability
here.”).
As Plaintiffs noted in their Emergency Motion to Remand, the
“imminent and substantial”
phrasing used in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint was nothing more than
a succinct way to describe
the present situation caused by Defendants’ contamination. [See DE
#9, at 2, 13.] Neither the
“imminent and substantial” standard, nor anything in RCRA more
generally, will govern the
resolution of Plaintiffs’ state-law claims. See, e.g., Ind. Code §
13–30–9–2 (standard for ELA
claim). That is, there is no federal issue, statute, regulation,
that is “actually disputed and
substantial,” to be addressed by this Court. Gunn v. Minton, 568
U.S. 251, 258 (2013) (quoting
Grable, 545 U.S. at 314). “Imminent and substantial endangerment”
is not a talismanic
incantation that transforms a state law claim into a RCRA citizens’
suit.5
C. Plaintiffs Have Chosen to Bring Only State-Law Causes of
Action.
The Raytheon Defendants do not disagree with the basic premise that
Plaintiffs’ well-
pled Complaint, on its face, raises only state-law complaints. They
argue, however, that this case
5 Evidence that Plaintiffs have not intended to bring a RCRA claim
is abundant. For example, Plaintiffs
did not provide the mandatory pre-suit notice to the USEPA or IDEM,
as required in 42 U.S.C. § 6972(b).
As such, this suit contains no viable RCRA claim. See, e.g.,
Hallstrom v. Tillamook Cty., 493 U.S. 20, 32
(1989) (failure to comply with § 6972(b)’s notice provisions
warrants dismissal).
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14 filed 06/29/20
page 7 of 17
7
looks a lot like a RCRA case because “municipalities, like the Town
of Andrews, have on
several occasions sought to use RCRA to compel action concerning
contamination that the
municipalities believed was affecting its drinking water supply.”
[DE #13, at 14.] Plaintiffs do
not dispute that municipalities can bring RCRA citizens’ suits; but
the Plaintiffs here, including
the Town, have expressly chosen not to. Because “the plaintiff is
‘the master of the complaint,’
the well-pleaded-complaint rule enables him, ‘by eschewing claims
based on federal law, . . . to
have the cause heard in state court.’” Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado
Air Circulation Sys., Inc.,
535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482
U.S. 386, 398–99 (1987)).
D. A Clean-Up Order is Not Exclusive to RCRA — Plaintiffs’ Request
for
Injunctive Relief Does Not Convert this Case Into a RCRA Citizens’
Suit.
The main thrust of the Raytheon Defendants’ argument on the
existence of a federal
question is that this must be a RCRA citizens’ suit in substance
because Plaintiffs could not
possibly obtain injunctive relief through any other vehicle. Again,
they are plainly incorrect.
1. RCRA Does Not Preempt State Law in the Field of Environmental
Clean-
Ups.
RCRA is not a complete preemption statute. On the contrary, it
expressly preserves state
law causes of action relating to environmental contamination:
Nothing in this section shall restrict any right which any person
(or class of
persons) may have under any statute or common law to seek
enforcement of any
standard or requirement relating to the management of solid waste
or hazardous
waste, or to seek any other relief (including relief against the
Administrator or a
State agency).
42 U.S.C. § 6972(f). Subsection (f) indicates that “RCRA
specifically preserves state law
remedies to fill gaps that may be left by its scheme.” Albany Bank
& Tr. Co. v. Exxon Mobil
Corp., 310 F.3d 969, 973 (7th Cir. 2002); see also W. Virginia
State Univ. Bd. of Governors for
& on behalf of W. Virginia State Univ. v. Dow Chem. Co., No.
2:17-CV-3558, 2020 WL
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14 filed 06/29/20
page 8 of 17
8
2842057, at *6 (S.D.W. Va. June 1, 2020) (“RCRA imposes the minimum
standard of
remediation and corrective action with which defendants must
comply, see 40 C.F.R. § 264.100,
but WVSU is free to seek and obtain additional or alternative
relief to the extent it is entitled to
that relief under state law.). In Albany Bank, the Seventh Circuit
held that “[s]imply because
under some factual circumstances RCRA might not require the
complete elimination of Exxon’s
pollution from Albany’s property does not preclude the possibility
that Illinois law might impose
exactly this type of duty.” 310 F.3d at 973. The same is true here;
under Indiana law, Plaintiffs
have the right to seek the complete elimination of Defendants’
contamination from their property
and the Town, despite the Raytheon Defendants’ argument to the
contrary.
2. Injunctive Relief is Available Under Each of Plaintiffs’ State
Law Causes
of Action.
The Raytheon Defendants’ entire argument hinges on the indefensible
position that none
of Plaintiffs’ state-law causes of action would entitle to them to
injunctive relief. The Raytheon
Defendants are simply wrong. As noted at the outset, Indiana courts
plainly recognize that “[t]he
trial court has full discretion to fashion equitable remedies that
are complete and fair to all parties
involved.” Hammes v. Frank, 579 N.E.2d 1348, 1355 (Ind. Ct. App.
1991). This overarching
equitable power has been consistently applied to each of
Plaintiffs’ theories of liability.
Trespass: Indiana courts have long recognized the availability of
injunctive relief for
trespass:
In the early history of equity jurisprudence courts of chancery
uniformly refused
to restrain trespass of any character, but in recent years the
courts have repeatedly
broken through this rule and now it can be said that cases in which
equity will
restrain trespass to realty are grouped as follows: (1) When the
legal remedy is
inadequate because the injury is irreparable in its nature; (2)
when the trespass is
continuous or repeated wrongful acts are done or threatened; and
(3) when the
legal remedy is inadequate because the trespasser is
insolvent.
Harris v. Krekler, 46 N.E.2d 267, 269 (Ind. Ct. App. 1943). Harris
itself affirmed the trial
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14 filed 06/29/20
page 9 of 17
9
court’s issuance of an injunction to halt a continuing trespass.
Id. Three decades later, the Court
of Appeals explained: “[t]he law is well-settled that an injunction
is a proper remedy to prevent a
continued trespass.” Selvia v. Reitmeyer, 295 N.E.2d 869, 875
(1973) (citing Harris, 46 N.E.2d
at 269; Evans v. Shephard, 142 N.E. 730 (Ind. Ct. App. 1924);
Fisher v. Carey, 119 N.E. 376
(Ind. Ct. App. 1918).
More recently, in Liter’s of Ind., Inc. v. Bennett, 51 N.E.3d 285,
300 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016),
the Court of Appeals held that a permanent injunction should be
entered requiring a landowner to
remove a portion of a roof that extended over a neighboring
property. The court concluded, “the
continued existence of the Appellee’s roof extending to Liter’s
property would involve a
continuing trespass. According, injunctive relief is the
appropriate remedy on remand.” Id.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that the Defendants’ contamination
has and continues to
invade their properties. [DE #10, ¶¶ 188–92.] Under Indiana’s
longstanding jurisprudence on
trespass, injunctive relief is available to Plaintiffs for
Defendants’ continuing trespasses. Selvia,
295 N.E.2d at 875; Harris, 46 N.E.2d at 269.
Nuisance: Similarly, injunctive relief is an entirely appropriate
remedy to abate a
nuisance. Indiana Code § 32–30–6–8 expressly allows injunctive
relief to abate a nuisance: “If a
proper case is made, the nuisance may be enjoined or abated and
damages recovered for the
nuisance.” Ind. Code § 32–30–6–8 (emphasis added). This should end
the debate.
But going even further, Indiana courts have long recognized the
availability of injunctive
relief under appropriate circumstances, where money damages are
inadequate. For example, in
1881, the Supreme Court explained that “[a] lawful business may be
so conducted as to become
a nuisance, but, in order to warrant interference by injunction,
the injury must be a material and
essential one.” Owen v. Phillips, 73 Ind. 284, 288 (1881).
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14 filed 06/29/20
page 10 of 17
10
A century later, the Court of Appeals continues to affirm the
availability of permanent
injunctive relief to abate a nuisance. In Gray v. Westinghouse
Elec. Corp., 624 N.E.2d 49, 53
(Ind. Ct. App. 1993), for example, the court explained that “the
creator of a nuisance can also be
required to abate the nuisance regardless of who owns the land.”
And in Bonewitz v. Parker, 912
N.E.2d 378, 383–84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), the court affirmed the
determination that the
defendant’s furnace constituted a nuisance, but reversed for the
trial court to make a
determination about whether money damages were adequate. The court
explained, “[i]f,
however, the trial court determines that Bonewitz and Dellinger
cannot be made whole with a
money judgment, then the court shall issue a total, permanent
injunction against Parker
prohibiting operation of his mycelium-drying business.” Id. at
385.
Here, Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendants’ contamination,
which continues to
pervade the Town of Andrews, has and continues to interfere with
their use and comfortable
enjoyment of their properties. [DE #10, ¶¶ 194–96.] To the extent
damages are insufficient to
remedy the continuing nature of the nuisance—exposure to
Defendants’ harmful
contamination—equitable relief in the form of an injunction to
remove the nuisance is plainly
available under Indiana law. See, e.g., Ind. Code § 32–30–6–8.
Bonewitz, 912 N.E.2d at 385.
Negligence: Injunctive relief is also available under Indiana’s
common law on
negligence. Again looking to the past, the Supreme Court
recognized, more than a century ago,
the “authority to warrant an injunction against two or more persons
who claim to have been
injured at the same time by the negligence of a corporation.”
Vandalia Coal Co. v. Lawson, 43
Ind. App. 226 (1909). The availability of injunctive relief in a
negligence action was more
recently reaffirmed in City of Gary ex rel. King v. Smith &
Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222,
1246 (Ind. 2003). The court held that “the City’s negligence claim
for injunctive relief remains
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14 filed 06/29/20
page 11 of 17
11
viable to the extent it alleges injury caused by the negligent sale
of handguns.” Id.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts that Defendants were negligent in
releasing contamination
into the environment, in attempting to remediate that
contamination, and in failing to warn the
Plaintiffs about the full extent of that contamination. [DE #10, at
¶¶ 198–204, 210–13.] Further,
Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants’ negligence with respect to
the contamination has caused
significant emotional distress. [Id. at ¶¶ 206–08.] Given the fact
Defendants’ contamination
remains in the soils, soil gas, groundwater, and utility lines
throughout the Town, and thus that
their negligence is ongoing, injunctive relief in the form of a
cleanup order is warranted, and is
available under Indiana law.
ELA: Finally, despite the Raytheon Defendants’ assertion,
injunctive relief is available as
a part of their ELA claim. The ELA statute provides:
A person may, regardless of whether the person caused or
contributed to the
release of a hazardous substance or petroleum into the surface or
subsurface soil
or groundwater that poses a risk to human health and the
environment, bring an
environmental legal action against a person that caused or
contributed to the
release to recover reasonable costs of a removal or remedial action
involving the
hazardous substances or petroleum.
Ind. Code Ann. § 13–30–9–2. The Indiana Supreme Court has explained
that “[i]t is clear from
the plain language of Ind.Code ch. 13–30–9 that the legislature
enacted the ELA statute to shift
the financial burden of environmental remediation to the parties
responsible for creating
contaminations.” Reed v. Reid, 980 N.E.2d 277, 286 (Ind. 2012)
(quoting Cooper Indus., L.L.C.
v. City of South Bend, 899 N.E.2d 1274, 1284 (Ind. 2009)).
The Raytheon Defendants argue that because the ELA statute is
silent on its face as to
injunctive relief, none is available. [DE #13, at 15–17.] There are
several problems with
Defendants’ reasoning. First, the Indiana Supreme Court has held
that “a court of equity has the
power to require that to be done which should have been done.”
Walter v. Balogh, 619 N.E.2d
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14 filed 06/29/20
page 12 of 17
12
566, 568 (Ind. 1993); see also Hammes, 579 N.E.2d at 1355. Nothing
in the ELA statute
precludes an order of injunctive relief, which Indiana trial courts
possess the authority to order.
The Raytheon Defendants cite Ind. Code § 34–11–2–11.5, claiming
that this section of
the ELA “provides an enumerated list of relief that plaintiffs may
seek.” [DE #13, at 15.]
Defendants are incorrect. The Indiana Court of Appeals recently
analyzed § 34–11–2–11.5,
finding that it sets out a 10-year statute of limitations for ELA
claims. See Elkhart Foundry &
Mach. Co. v. City of Elkhart Redevelopment Comm’n for City of
Elkhart, 112 N.E.3d 1123, 1127
(Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied, 124 N.E.3d 39 (Ind. 2019)
(concluding that § 34-11-2-11.5 is
a statute of limitations currently applicable to claims under the
ELA). It does not purport to
provide an exhaustive list of remedies.
Defendants also argue that relief under the ELA is limited to money
damages. [DE #13,
at 15–16.] But unlike other awards of money damages, the money
damages awardable under the
ELA are specifically for the costs of a clean-up—either past or
prospective costs—including
related attorneys’ fees. See Ind. Code § 13–30–9–3.
Notably, under the ELA, plaintiffs need not have incurred response
costs in order to
pursue recovery of future corrective action costs. For example, in
the Shell Oil Co. v. Meyer
litigation, the defendant Oil Companies argued that landowners
whose wells had become
contaminated with petroleum could not seek future (as yet
un-incurred) corrective costs under
the Indiana Underground Storage Tank Act (“USTA”). The Indiana
Court of Appeals rejected
this argument as contrary to “the explicit purposes of Indiana’s
environmental statutes, stating:
The relevant section does not state that a person who undertakes
corrective action
is entitled to receive a contribution only after the actions are
taken. Yet that type
of language must be read into the USTA in order to interpret the
USTA as the Oil
Companies do.
Shell Oil Co. v. Meyer, 684 N.E.2d 504, 520 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997),
summarily aff’d in part, 705
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14 filed 06/29/20
page 13 of 17
13
N.E.2d 962 (1998) (emphasis in original). In fact, in Shell, the
oil companies’ petroleum had
contaminated the plaintiffs’ drinking water—just as in this case.
After determining liability
against the defendants, “the trial judge utilized the equitable
powers granted him by the USTA to
approve a practical remedy for the future corrective action
problem.” Id. at 521. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order that the defendants place
$2.7 million in an account, to
be used exclusively for the implementation of a remedial
plan—except as to the provision that
the prevailing landowners could draw upon that account without
notice to the court or the
defendant oil companies. Id. Notably, the Supreme Court summarily
affirmed the Court of
Appeals’ affirmance of this equitable remedy. Shell Oil Co. v.
Meyer, 705 N.E.2d 962, 981 (Ind.
1998) (“We summarily affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals
with respect to the following
issues: future corrective action costs . . . .”).
Shell does not involve Indiana’s Environmental Legal Action
statute. However, the ELA
statute—like the USTA statute at issue in Shell—likewise does not
contain any provision
requiring a person to incur remedial or removal costs as a
prerequisite to filing suit. See Ind.
Code § 13–30–9–2. Notably, the Seventh Circuit has recognized that
that ELA and USTA claims
are “alike in nature and substance.” Bernstein v. Bankert, 733 F.3d
190, 219 (7th Cir. 2013).
Ultimately, because liability under the ELA—like the USTA—can
support equitable
relief, the net effect of a successful claim for unremediated
contamination under the ELA is
equitable relief—i.e., an order requiring the “parties responsible
for creating contaminations” to
pay for the remediation. Reed, 980 N.E.2d at 286. If that
remediation has not yet occurred, or has
not yet been completed, the responsible parties will be ordered to
pay for the remaining costs of
remediation on their own dime. See id.; Shell Oil Co., 684 N.E.2d
at 520–21.
3. Even if State Law Did Not Allow Injunctive Relief, the Result
Would Be to
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Injunctive Relief, Not to
Spontaneously
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14 filed 06/29/20
page 14 of 17
14
Convert Their Cause of Action.
The fundamental flaw in the Raytheon Defendants’ argument is that,
even if they are
right about injunctive relief not being available under Indiana law
(and they are not), the remedy
would not be to spontaneously convert the claims into a RCRA
citizens’ suit for the purpose of
creating federal jurisdiction. It is not an uncommon phenomenon
that a plaintiff requests relief
that is simply not available. The proper remedy is to dismiss that
specific prayer for relief, and
possibly allow amendment of the complaint. See, e.g., Jumpfly, Inc.
v. Torling, No. 10 C 0385,
2010 WL 1978732, at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2010) (dismissing prayer
for injunctive relief, where
not available under state law). The Raytheon Defendants offer no
rationale nor case law, for their
argument that the Court should substitute a different cause of
action that was specifically not
pled by Plaintiffs, for the sole purpose of finding federal subject
matter jurisdiction.
E. Grable Has No Application to This Case.
Resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims does not require the
interpretation of a substantial issue of
federal law. Every case to address Grable in the context of RCRA
has similarly held. Notably,
the Raytheon Defendants’ brief does not cite a single case that has
found federal “arising under”
jurisdiction based on the type of relief the complaint seeks.
The Raytheon Defendants’ attempt to distinguish the RCRA-specific
cases cited in
Plaintiffs’ brief further undermines their position. These cases
each far more overtly relied upon
RCRA as a basis for their state-law claims. See Giles, 631 F. Supp.
2d at 989 (civil conspiracy
predicated on violation of RCRA); DeLuca v. Tonawanda Coke Corp.,
No. 10-CV-859S, 2011
WL 3799985, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2011) (allegations that
defendants were in violation of
several federal statutes, including RCRA, the Clean Air Act, and
the Clean Water Act). Each of
these district courts readily held that the high bar set by Grable
was not satisfied. See also, e.g.,
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14 filed 06/29/20
page 15 of 17
15
Mississippi ex rel. Hood, 2018 WL 1309722, at *4; Abbo-Bradley v.
City of Niagara Falls, No.
13-CV-487-JTC, 2013 WL 4505454, at *9 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2013). The
same is true here.
There no “actual and substantial” federal question embedded in
Plaintiffs’ purely state-law
causes of action for trespass, nuisance, negligence, and ELA. The
fact that injunctive relief is
available to Plaintiffs under their state law claims dooms the
Raytheon Defendants’ argument.
The Grable test is plainly not satisfied.6
IV. The Raytheon Defendants Had No Objectively Reasonable Basis to
Remove this
Case, and Fees Should Be Awarded.
The Raytheon Defendants’ removal and opposition to remand is so
bereft of legal
authority as to border on frivolous. There was no “objectively
reasonable basis for seeking
removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005)
Further, the Raytheon
Defendants do not even attempt to offer an explanation—let alone
justification—for the brazen
timing of their removal, including waiting until the night before
the hearing on the Town’s
motion for emergency preliminary injunction to remove the case.
[See DE #9, at 7.] Bad faith is
no long required for an award of attorneys’ fees under § 1447(c).
See Graff v. Leslie Hindman
Auctioneers, Inc., 299 F. Supp. 3d 928, 938 (N.D. Ill. 2017). But
the Raytheon Defendants have
demonstrated it here in spades. An award of fees pursuant to §
1447(c) is warranted.
V. Conclusion.
For these reasons, as well as those Plaintiffs, by counsel,
respectfully request this Court
enter an Order remanding this case to the Huntington County
Superior Court, grant Plaintiffs an
award of attorneys’ fees for pursuing remand, and for all other
just and proper relief.
6 In fact, by seeking only to sever and consolidate the Town’s
request (not any cause of action or claim)
for injunctive relief, and conceding that the claims of the 77
other individual Plaintiffs should be
remanded in their entirety to state court [see DE #13, at 22–24],
the Raytheon Defendants tacitly admit
that those causes of action—which likewise seek injunctive
relief—do not constitute RCRA citizens’ suits
or otherwise involve “arising under” federal jurisdiction under
Grable.
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14 filed 06/29/20
page 16 of 17
16
Rodney L. Michael, Jr., Attorney No. 23681-49
Benjamin A. Wolowski, Attorney No. 33733-49
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 29, 2020, a copy of
the foregoing was
electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF
system, which sent notification of
such filing to all counsel of record. Paper copies were sent by US
Mail, postage prepaid, to:
L.D. Williams, Inc. & LDW Development LLC
c/o Richard Delaney
533 Warren St.
Huntington, IN 46750
/s/ Thomas A. Barnard
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14 filed 06/29/20
page 17 of 17
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-1 filed 06/29/20
page 1 of 5
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-1 filed 06/29/20
page 2 of 5
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-1 filed 06/29/20
page 3 of 5
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-1 filed 06/29/20
page 4 of 5
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-1 filed 06/29/20
page 5 of 5
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 1 of 24
#=CL#
50261040 Project: Pace Project No.:
RE:
Ms. Susan Hall Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (IN) 8770 Guion
Road Suite B Indianapolis, IN 46268
Raytheon Technologies Andrews
Dear Ms. Hall:
Enclosed are the analytical results for sample(s) received by the
laboratory on June 27, 2020. The results relate only to the samples
included in this report. Results reported herein conform to the
applicable TNI/NELAC Standards and the laboratory's Quality Manual,
where applicable, unless otherwise noted in the body of the
report.
The test results provided in this final report were generated by
each of the following laboratories within the Pace Network: • Pace
Analytical Services - Indianapolis
If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced,
except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 1 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 2 of 24
#=CP#
CERTIFICATIONS
Pace Analytical Services Indianapolis 7726 Moller Road,
Indianapolis, IN 46268 Illinois Accreditation #: 200074 Indiana
Drinking Water Laboratory #: C-49-06 Kansas/TNI Certification #:
E-10177 Kentucky UST Agency Interest #: 80226 Kentucky WW
Laboratory ID #: 98019 Michigan Drinking Water Laboratory
#9050
Ohio VAP Certified Laboratory #: CL0065 Oklahoma Laboratory #: 9204
Texas Certification #: T104704355 West Virginia Certification #:
330 Wisconsin Laboratory #: 999788130 USDA Soil Permit #:
P330-19-00257
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced,
except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 2 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 3 of 24
#=SS#
50261040001 FTW/POE-062720 Water 06/27/20 10:21 06/27/20
14:00
50261040002 WWTP-062720 Water 06/27/20 10:33 06/27/20 14:00
50261040003 Town Hall-062720 Water 06/27/20 10:45 06/27/20
14:00
50261040004 Andrews Elementary-062720 Water 06/27/20 11:00 06/27/20
14:00
50261040005 TB Water 06/27/20 08:00 06/27/20 14:00
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced,
except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 3 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 4 of 24
#=SA#
50261040001 FTW/POE-062720 EPA 524.2 48 PASI-IRSW
50261040002 WWTP-062720 EPA 524.2 48 PASI-IRSW
50261040003 Town Hall-062720 EPA 524.2 48 PASI-IRSW
50261040004 Andrews Elementary-062720 EPA 524.2 48 PASI-IRSW
50261040005 TB EPA 524.2 48 PASI-IRSW
PASI-I = Pace Analytical Services - Indianapolis
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced,
except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 4 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 5 of 24
#=HO#
Report Limit QualifiersUnitsMethod Client Sample ID
50261040002 WWTP-062720 Bromodichloromethane 0.65 ug/L 06/27/20
17:12 N20.50EPA 524.2 Chloroform 1.2 ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 N20.50EPA
524.2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 3.9 ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 N20.50EPA
524.2
50261040003 Town Hall-062720 Bromodichloromethane 8.1 ug/L 06/27/20
17:38 N20.50EPA 524.2 Chloroform 9.1 ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 N20.50EPA
524.2 Dibromochloromethane 5.7 ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 N21.0EPA 524.2
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 3.7 ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 N20.50EPA
524.2
50261040004 Andrews Elementary-062720 Bromodichloromethane 3.7 ug/L
06/27/20 18:04 N20.50EPA 524.2 Chloroform 4.8 ug/L 06/27/20 18:04
N20.50EPA 524.2 Dibromochloromethane 2.7 ug/L 06/27/20 18:04
N21.0EPA 524.2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 2.0 ug/L 06/27/20 18:04
N20.50EPA 524.2
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced,
except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 5 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 6 of 24
#=AR#
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. QualReport
Limit
Analytical Method: EPA 524.2 Pace Analytical Services -
Indianapolis
524.2 MSV
Benzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 71-43-2 N20.50 1 Bromobenzene ND
ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 108-86-1 N20.50 1 Bromodichloromethane ND ug/L
06/27/20 16:46 75-27-4 N20.50 1 Bromoform ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46
75-25-2 N21.0 1 Bromomethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 74-83-9 N25.0 1
Carbon tetrachloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 56-23-5 N20.50 1
Chlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 108-90-7 N20.50 1 Chloroethane
ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 75-00-3 N20.50 1 Chloroform ND ug/L 06/27/20
16:46 67-66-3 N20.50 1 Chloromethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 74-87-3
N21.0 1 2-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 95-49-8 N21.0 1
4-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 106-43-4 N20.50 1
Dibromochloromethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 124-48-1 N21.0 1
Dibromomethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 74-95-3 N20.50 1
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 95-50-1 N20.50 1
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 541-73-1 N20.50 1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 106-46-7 N20.50 1
1,1-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 75-34-3 N20.50 1
1,2-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 107-06-2 N20.50 1
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 75-35-4 N20.50 1
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 156-59-2 N20.50 1
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 156-60-5 N20.50 1
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 78-87-5 N20.50 1
1,3-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 142-28-9 N20.50 1
2,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 594-20-7 N20.50 1
1,1-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 563-58-6 N21.0 1
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 10061-01-5 N20.50 1
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 10061-02-6 N20.50
1 Ethylbenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 100-41-4 N20.50 1 Methylene
Chloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 75-09-2 N22.5 1 Methyl-tert-butyl
ether ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 1634-04-4 N21.0 1 Styrene ND ug/L
06/27/20 16:46 100-42-5 N20.50 1 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L
06/27/20 16:46 630-20-6 N20.50 1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L
06/27/20 16:46 79-34-5 N21.0 1 Tetrachloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20
16:46 127-18-4 N20.50 1 Toluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 108-88-3
N21.0 1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 120-82-1
N20.50 1 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 71-55-6
N20.50 1 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 79-00-5
N20.50 1 Trichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 79-01-6 N20.50 1
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 96-18-4 N22.0 1 Vinyl
chloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 75-01-4 N20.50 1 Xylene (Total) ND
ug/L 06/27/20 16:46 1330-20-7 N20.50 1 m&p-Xylene ND ug/L
06/27/20 16:46 179601-23-1 N20.50 1 o-Xylene ND ug/L 06/27/20 16:46
95-47-6 N20.50 1
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced,
except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date:
06/27/2020 08:06 PM
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 6 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 7 of 24
#=AR#
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. QualReport
Limit
Analytical Method: EPA 524.2 Pace Analytical Services -
Indianapolis
524.2 MSV
Surrogates 4-Bromofluorobenzene (S) 98 %. 06/27/20 16:46
460-00-470-130 1 Dibromofluoromethane (S) 102 %. 06/27/20 16:46
1868-53-770-130 1 Toluene-d8 (S) 109 %. 06/27/20 16:46
2037-26-570-130 1
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced,
except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date:
06/27/2020 08:06 PM
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 7 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 8 of 24
#=AR#
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. QualReport
Limit
Analytical Method: EPA 524.2 Pace Analytical Services -
Indianapolis
524.2 MSV
Benzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 71-43-2 N20.50 1 Bromobenzene ND
ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 108-86-1 N20.50 1 Bromodichloromethane 0.65
ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 75-27-4 N20.50 1 Bromoform ND ug/L 06/27/20
17:12 75-25-2 N21.0 1 Bromomethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 74-83-9
N25.0 1 Carbon tetrachloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 56-23-5 N20.50
1 Chlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 108-90-7 N20.50 1
Chloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 75-00-3 N20.50 1 Chloroform 1.2
ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 67-66-3 N20.50 1 Chloromethane ND ug/L 06/27/20
17:12 74-87-3 N21.0 1 2-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12
95-49-8 N21.0 1 4-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 106-43-4
N20.50 1 Dibromochloromethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 124-48-1 N21.0
1 Dibromomethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 74-95-3 N20.50 1
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 95-50-1 N20.50 1
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 541-73-1 N20.50 1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 106-46-7 N20.50 1
1,1-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 75-34-3 N20.50 1
1,2-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 107-06-2 N20.50 1
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 75-35-4 N20.50 1
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 3.9 ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 156-59-2 N20.50 1
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 156-60-5 N20.50 1
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 78-87-5 N20.50 1
1,3-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 142-28-9 N20.50 1
2,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 594-20-7 N20.50 1
1,1-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 563-58-6 N21.0 1
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 10061-01-5 N20.50 1
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 10061-02-6 N20.50
1 Ethylbenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 100-41-4 N20.50 1 Methylene
Chloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 75-09-2 N22.5 1 Methyl-tert-butyl
ether ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 1634-04-4 N21.0 1 Styrene ND ug/L
06/27/20 17:12 100-42-5 N20.50 1 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L
06/27/20 17:12 630-20-6 N20.50 1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L
06/27/20 17:12 79-34-5 N21.0 1 Tetrachloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20
17:12 127-18-4 N20.50 1 Toluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 108-88-3
N21.0 1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 120-82-1
N20.50 1 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 71-55-6
N20.50 1 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 79-00-5
N20.50 1 Trichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 79-01-6 N20.50 1
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 96-18-4 N22.0 1 Vinyl
chloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 75-01-4 N20.50 1 Xylene (Total) ND
ug/L 06/27/20 17:12 1330-20-7 N20.50 1 m&p-Xylene ND ug/L
06/27/20 17:12 179601-23-1 N20.50 1 o-Xylene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:12
95-47-6 N20.50 1
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced,
except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date:
06/27/2020 08:06 PM
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 8 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 9 of 24
#=AR#
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. QualReport
Limit
Analytical Method: EPA 524.2 Pace Analytical Services -
Indianapolis
524.2 MSV
Surrogates 4-Bromofluorobenzene (S) 106 %. 06/27/20 17:12
460-00-470-130 1 Dibromofluoromethane (S) 98 %. 06/27/20 17:12
1868-53-770-130 1 Toluene-d8 (S) 108 %. 06/27/20 17:12
2037-26-570-130 1
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced,
except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date:
06/27/2020 08:06 PM
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 9 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 10 of 24
#=AR#
Sample: Town Hall-062720 Lab ID: 50261040003 Collected: 06/27/20
10:45 Received: 06/27/20 14:00 Matrix: Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. QualReport
Limit
Analytical Method: EPA 524.2 Pace Analytical Services -
Indianapolis
524.2 MSV
Benzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 71-43-2 N20.50 1 Bromobenzene ND
ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 108-86-1 N20.50 1 Bromodichloromethane 8.1 ug/L
06/27/20 17:38 75-27-4 N20.50 1 Bromoform ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38
75-25-2 N21.0 1 Bromomethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 74-83-9 N25.0 1
Carbon tetrachloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 56-23-5 N20.50 1
Chlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 108-90-7 N20.50 1 Chloroethane
ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 75-00-3 N20.50 1 Chloroform 9.1 ug/L
06/27/20 17:38 67-66-3 N20.50 1 Chloromethane ND ug/L 06/27/20
17:38 74-87-3 N21.0 1 2-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38
95-49-8 N21.0 1 4-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 106-43-4
N20.50 1 Dibromochloromethane 5.7 ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 124-48-1
N21.0 1 Dibromomethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 74-95-3 N20.50 1
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 95-50-1 N20.50 1
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 541-73-1 N20.50 1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 106-46-7 N20.50 1
1,1-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 75-34-3 N20.50 1
1,2-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 107-06-2 N20.50 1
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 75-35-4 N20.50 1
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 3.7 ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 156-59-2 N20.50 1
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 156-60-5 N20.50 1
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 78-87-5 N20.50 1
1,3-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 142-28-9 N20.50 1
2,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 594-20-7 N20.50 1
1,1-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 563-58-6 N21.0 1
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 10061-01-5 N20.50 1
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 10061-02-6 N20.50
1 Ethylbenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 100-41-4 N20.50 1 Methylene
Chloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 75-09-2 N22.5 1 Methyl-tert-butyl
ether ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 1634-04-4 N21.0 1 Styrene ND ug/L
06/27/20 17:38 100-42-5 N20.50 1 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L
06/27/20 17:38 630-20-6 N20.50 1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L
06/27/20 17:38 79-34-5 N21.0 1 Tetrachloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20
17:38 127-18-4 N20.50 1 Toluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 108-88-3
N21.0 1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 120-82-1
N20.50 1 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 71-55-6
N20.50 1 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 79-00-5
N20.50 1 Trichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 79-01-6 N20.50 1
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 96-18-4 N22.0 1 Vinyl
chloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 75-01-4 N20.50 1 Xylene (Total) ND
ug/L 06/27/20 17:38 1330-20-7 N20.50 1 m&p-Xylene ND ug/L
06/27/20 17:38 179601-23-1 N20.50 1 o-Xylene ND ug/L 06/27/20 17:38
95-47-6 N20.50 1
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced,
except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date:
06/27/2020 08:06 PM
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 10 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 11 of 24
#=AR#
Sample: Town Hall-062720 Lab ID: 50261040003 Collected: 06/27/20
10:45 Received: 06/27/20 14:00 Matrix: Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. QualReport
Limit
Analytical Method: EPA 524.2 Pace Analytical Services -
Indianapolis
524.2 MSV
Surrogates 4-Bromofluorobenzene (S) 95 %. 06/27/20 17:38
460-00-470-130 1 Dibromofluoromethane (S) 103 %. 06/27/20 17:38
1868-53-770-130 1 Toluene-d8 (S) 105 %. 06/27/20 17:38
2037-26-570-130 1
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced,
except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date:
06/27/2020 08:06 PM
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 11 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 12 of 24
#=AR#
Lab ID: 50261040004 Collected: 06/27/20 11:00 Received: 06/27/20
14:00 Matrix: Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. QualReport
Limit
Analytical Method: EPA 524.2 Pace Analytical Services -
Indianapolis
524.2 MSV
Benzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 71-43-2 N20.50 1 Bromobenzene ND
ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 108-86-1 N20.50 1 Bromodichloromethane 3.7 ug/L
06/27/20 18:04 75-27-4 N20.50 1 Bromoform ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04
75-25-2 N21.0 1 Bromomethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 74-83-9 N25.0 1
Carbon tetrachloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 56-23-5 N20.50 1
Chlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 108-90-7 N20.50 1 Chloroethane
ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 75-00-3 N20.50 1 Chloroform 4.8 ug/L
06/27/20 18:04 67-66-3 N20.50 1 Chloromethane ND ug/L 06/27/20
18:04 74-87-3 N21.0 1 2-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04
95-49-8 N21.0 1 4-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 106-43-4
N20.50 1 Dibromochloromethane 2.7 ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 124-48-1
N21.0 1 Dibromomethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 74-95-3 N20.50 1
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 95-50-1 N20.50 1
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 541-73-1 N20.50 1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 106-46-7 N20.50 1
1,1-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 75-34-3 N20.50 1
1,2-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 107-06-2 N20.50 1
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 75-35-4 N20.50 1
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 2.0 ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 156-59-2 N20.50 1
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 156-60-5 N20.50 1
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 78-87-5 N20.50 1
1,3-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 142-28-9 N20.50 1
2,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 594-20-7 N20.50 1
1,1-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 563-58-6 N21.0 1
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 10061-01-5 N20.50 1
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 10061-02-6 N20.50
1 Ethylbenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 100-41-4 N20.50 1 Methylene
Chloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 75-09-2 N22.5 1 Methyl-tert-butyl
ether ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 1634-04-4 N21.0 1 Styrene ND ug/L
06/27/20 18:04 100-42-5 N20.50 1 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L
06/27/20 18:04 630-20-6 N20.50 1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L
06/27/20 18:04 79-34-5 N21.0 1 Tetrachloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20
18:04 127-18-4 N20.50 1 Toluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 108-88-3
N21.0 1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 120-82-1
N20.50 1 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 71-55-6
N20.50 1 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 79-00-5
N20.50 1 Trichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 79-01-6 N20.50 1
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 96-18-4 N22.0 1 Vinyl
chloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 75-01-4 N20.50 1 Xylene (Total) ND
ug/L 06/27/20 18:04 1330-20-7 N20.50 1 m&p-Xylene ND ug/L
06/27/20 18:04 179601-23-1 N20.50 1 o-Xylene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:04
95-47-6 N20.50 1
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced,
except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date:
06/27/2020 08:06 PM
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 12 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 13 of 24
#=AR#
Lab ID: 50261040004 Collected: 06/27/20 11:00 Received: 06/27/20
14:00 Matrix: Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. QualReport
Limit
Analytical Method: EPA 524.2 Pace Analytical Services -
Indianapolis
524.2 MSV
Surrogates 4-Bromofluorobenzene (S) 101 %. 06/27/20 18:04
460-00-470-130 1 Dibromofluoromethane (S) 98 %. 06/27/20 18:04
1868-53-770-130 1 Toluene-d8 (S) 108 %. 06/27/20 18:04
2037-26-570-130 1
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced,
except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date:
06/27/2020 08:06 PM
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 13 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 14 of 24
#=AR#
Sample: TB Lab ID: 50261040005 Collected: 06/27/20 08:00 Received:
06/27/20 14:00 Matrix: Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. QualReport
Limit
Analytical Method: EPA 524.2 Pace Analytical Services -
Indianapolis
524.2 MSV
Benzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 71-43-2 N20.50 1 Bromobenzene ND
ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 108-86-1 N20.50 1 Bromodichloromethane ND ug/L
06/27/20 18:30 75-27-4 N20.50 1 Bromoform ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30
75-25-2 N21.0 1 Bromomethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 74-83-9 N25.0 1
Carbon tetrachloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 56-23-5 N20.50 1
Chlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 108-90-7 N20.50 1 Chloroethane
ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 75-00-3 N20.50 1 Chloroform ND ug/L 06/27/20
18:30 67-66-3 N20.50 1 Chloromethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 74-87-3
N21.0 1 2-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 95-49-8 N21.0 1
4-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 106-43-4 N20.50 1
Dibromochloromethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 124-48-1 N21.0 1
Dibromomethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 74-95-3 N20.50 1
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 95-50-1 N20.50 1
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 541-73-1 N20.50 1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 106-46-7 N20.50 1
1,1-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 75-34-3 N20.50 1
1,2-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 107-06-2 N20.50 1
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 75-35-4 N20.50 1
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 156-59-2 N20.50 1
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 156-60-5 N20.50 1
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 78-87-5 N20.50 1
1,3-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 142-28-9 N20.50 1
2,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 594-20-7 N20.50 1
1,1-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 563-58-6 N21.0 1
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 10061-01-5 N20.50 1
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 10061-02-6 N20.50
1 Ethylbenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 100-41-4 N20.50 1 Methylene
Chloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 75-09-2 N22.5 1 Methyl-tert-butyl
ether ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 1634-04-4 N21.0 1 Styrene ND ug/L
06/27/20 18:30 100-42-5 N20.50 1 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L
06/27/20 18:30 630-20-6 N20.50 1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L
06/27/20 18:30 79-34-5 N21.0 1 Tetrachloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20
18:30 127-18-4 N20.50 1 Toluene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 108-88-3
N21.0 1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 120-82-1
N20.50 1 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 71-55-6
N20.50 1 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 79-00-5
N20.50 1 Trichloroethene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 79-01-6 N20.50 1
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 96-18-4 N22.0 1 Vinyl
chloride ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 75-01-4 N20.50 1 Xylene (Total) ND
ug/L 06/27/20 18:30 1330-20-7 N20.50 1 m&p-Xylene ND ug/L
06/27/20 18:30 179601-23-1 N20.50 1 o-Xylene ND ug/L 06/27/20 18:30
95-47-6 N20.50 1
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced,
except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date:
06/27/2020 08:06 PM
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 14 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 15 of 24
#=AR#
Sample: TB Lab ID: 50261040005 Collected: 06/27/20 08:00 Received:
06/27/20 14:00 Matrix: Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. QualReport
Limit
Analytical Method: EPA 524.2 Pace Analytical Services -
Indianapolis
524.2 MSV
Surrogates 4-Bromofluorobenzene (S) 102 %. 06/27/20 18:30
460-00-470-130 1 Dibromofluoromethane (S) 101 %. 06/27/20 18:30
1868-53-770-130 1 Toluene-d8 (S) 109 %. 06/27/20 18:30
2037-26-570-130 1
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced,
except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date:
06/27/2020 08:06 PM
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 15 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 16 of 24
#=QC#
Pace Project No.: Project:
50261040 Raytheon Technologies Andrews
Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the
"Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the
right of the result.
QC Batch: QC Batch Method:
Analysis Method: Analysis Description:
Parameter Units Blank Result
Matrix: Water
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 N206/27/20 16:20
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20
1,1-Dichloroethane ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 1,1-Dichloropropene ug/L ND 1.0
N206/27/20 16:20 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ug/L ND 2.0 N206/27/20
16:20 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20
1,2-Dichloroethane ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20
1,2-Dichloropropane ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20
1,3-Dichloropropane ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20
2,2-Dichloropropane ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L ND 1.0 N206/27/20 16:20 4-Chlorotoluene ug/L ND 0.50
N206/27/20 16:20 Benzene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Bromobenzene
ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Bromodichloromethane ug/L ND 0.50
N206/27/20 16:20 Bromoform ug/L ND 1.0 N206/27/20 16:20
Bromomethane ug/L ND 5.0 N206/27/20 16:20 Carbon tetrachloride ug/L
ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Chlorobenzene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20
16:20 Chloroethane ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Chloroform ug/L ND
0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Chloromethane ug/L ND 1.0 N206/27/20 16:20
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20
Dibromochloromethane ug/L ND 1.0 N206/27/20 16:20 Dibromomethane
ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Ethylbenzene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20
16:20 m&p-Xylene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20
Methyl-tert-butyl ether ug/L ND 1.0 N206/27/20 16:20 Methylene
Chloride ug/L ND 2.5 N206/27/20 16:20 o-Xylene ug/L ND 0.50
N206/27/20 16:20 Styrene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20
Tetrachloroethene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Toluene ug/L ND 1.0
N206/27/20 16:20
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced,
except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date:
06/27/2020 08:06 PM
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 16 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 17 of 24
#=QC#
Pace Project No.: Project:
50261040 Raytheon Technologies Andrews
Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the
"Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the
right of the result.
Parameter Units Blank Result
Matrix: Water
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20
Trichloroethene ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Vinyl chloride ug/L
ND 0.50 N206/27/20 16:20 Xylene (Total) ug/L ND 0.50 N206/27/20
16:20 4-Bromofluorobenzene (S) %. 100 70-130 06/27/20 16:20
Dibromofluoromethane (S) %. 100 70-130 06/27/20 16:20 Toluene-d8
(S) %. 111 70-130 06/27/20 16:20
Parameter Units LCS
2628305LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: LCSSpike
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L 46.7 N250 93 70-130
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L 50.1 N250 100 70-130
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L 54.2 N250 108 70-130
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ug/L 50.4 N250 101 70-130 1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 54.8 N250 110 70-130 1,1-Dichloroethene ug/L 51.9 N250 104
70-130 1,1-Dichloropropene ug/L 53.2 N250 106 70-130
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ug/L 45.2 N250 90 70-130
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ug/L 49.1 N250 98 70-130 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 45.1 N250 90 70-130 1,2-Dichloroethane ug/L 44.4 N250 89
70-130 1,2-Dichloropropane ug/L 52.2 N250 104 70-130
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ug/L 46.2 N250 92 70-130 1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 53.6 N250 107 70-130 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/L 45.0 N250 90
70-130 2,2-Dichloropropane ug/L 53.5 N250 107 70-130
2-Chlorotoluene ug/L 50.5 N250 101 70-130 4-Chlorotoluene ug/L 48.4
N250 97 70-130 Benzene ug/L 50.0 N250 100 70-130 Bromobenzene ug/L
48.2 N250 96 70-130 Bromodichloromethane ug/L 44.8 N250 90 70-130
Bromoform ug/L 41.3 N250 83 70-130 Bromomethane ug/L 45.3 N250 91
70-130 Carbon tetrachloride ug/L 51.1 N250 102 70-130 Chlorobenzene
ug/L 49.0 N250 98 70-130 Chloroethane ug/L 41.9 N250 84 70-130
Chloroform ug/L 44.2 N250 88 70-130 Chloromethane ug/L 48.4 N250 97
70-130 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L 48.2 N250 96 70-130
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L 56.2 N250 112 70-130
Dibromochloromethane ug/L 45.8 N250 92 70-130 Dibromomethane ug/L
45.2 N250 90 70-130
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced,
except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date:
06/27/2020 08:06 PM
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 17 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 18 of 24
#=QC#
Pace Project No.: Project:
50261040 Raytheon Technologies Andrews
Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the
"Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the
right of the result.
Parameter Units LCS
2628305LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: LCSSpike
Ethylbenzene ug/L 50.7 N250 101 70-130 m&p-Xylene ug/L 102
N2100 102 70-130 Methyl-tert-butyl ether ug/L 48.4 N250 97 70-130
Methylene Chloride ug/L 51.6 N250 103 70-130 o-Xylene ug/L 49.1
N250 98 70-130 Styrene ug/L 49.2 N250 98 70-130 Tetrachloroethene
ug/L 51.0 N250 102 70-130 Toluene ug/L 53.8 N250 108 70-130
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L 50.8 N250 102 70-130
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L 49.8 N250 100 70-130 Trichloroethene
ug/L 48.7 N250 97 70-130 Vinyl chloride ug/L 57.0 N250 114 70-130
Xylene (Total) ug/L 151 N2150 101 70-130 4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)
%. 105 70-130 Dibromofluoromethane (S) %. 97 70-130 Toluene-d8 (S)
%. 107 70-130
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced,
except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date:
06/27/2020 08:06 PM
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 18 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 19 of 24
#=QL#
QUALIFIERS
DEFINITIONS
DF - Dilution Factor, if reported, represents the factor applied to
the reported data due to dilution of the sample aliquot. ND - Not
Detected at or above adjusted reporting limit. TNTC - Too Numerous
To Count J - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method
detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit. MDL -
Adjusted Method Detection Limit. PQL - Practical Quantitation
Limit. RL - Reporting Limit - The lowest concentration value that
meets project requirements for quantitative data with known
precision and bias for a specific analyte in a specific matrix. S -
Surrogate 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine decomposes to and cannot be
separated from Azobenzene using Method 8270. The result for each
analyte is a combined concentration. Consistent with EPA
guidelines, unrounded data are displayed and have been used to
calculate % recovery and RPD values. LCS(D) - Laboratory Control
Sample (Duplicate) MS(D) - Matrix Spike (Duplicate) DUP - Sample
Duplicate RPD - Relative Percent Difference NC - Not Calculable. SG
- Silica Gel - Clean-Up U - Indicates the compound was analyzed
for, but not detected. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine decomposes and cannot
be separated from Diphenylamine using Method 8270. The result
reported for each analyte is a combined concentration. Pace
Analytical is TNI accredited. Contact your Pace PM for the current
list of accredited analytes. TNI - The NELAC Institute.
ANALYTE QUALIFIERS The lab does not hold NELAC/TNI accreditation
for this parameter but other accreditations/certifications may
apply. A complete list of accreditations/certifications is
available upon request.
N2
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced,
except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date:
06/27/2020 08:06 PM
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 19 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 20 of 24
#=CR#
Pace Project No.: Project:
50261040 Raytheon Technologies Andrews
Lab ID Sample ID QC Batch Method QC Batch Analytical Method
Analytical Batch
50261040001 569587FTW/POE-062720 EPA 524.2 50261040002
569587WWTP-062720 EPA 524.2 50261040003 569587Town Hall-062720 EPA
524.2 50261040004 569587Andrews Elementary-062720 EPA 524.2
50261040005 569587TB EPA 524.2
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced,
except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date:
06/27/2020 08:06 PM
Pace Analytical Services, LLC 7726 Moller Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317)228-3100
Page 20 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 21 of 24
Page 21 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 22 of 24
Page 22 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00238-HAB-SLC document 14-2 filed 06/29/20
page 23 of 24
Page 23 of 23