Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Louisiana Trial Court Enjoins EPA From Enforcement of Disparate Impact Regulations Under Title VI
- D.C. Circuit Continues to Afford Deference to Technical Agency Decisions
- SCOTUS to Resolve Scope of Agency NEPA Environmental Analysis
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules that Nonprofits are Permitted to Defend Pennsylvania’s Membership in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
- Massachusetts Appeals Court Affirms Cleanup Option with Activity and Use Exemption and No Award for Diminution in Value
Topics
- Title VI
- Disparate Impact
- Environmental Justice
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- FIFRA
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- United States Supreme Court
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- HSCA
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Missouri
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Water
- Illinois
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Equity
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Boiler MACT
- Consent Decree
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Enforcement
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Certification
- Contamination
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- CLE
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- CERCLA
- Real Estate
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Odors
- Class Actions
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- New Jersey
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Cleanup
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Multi-District Litigation
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Under Section 9607(a)(3) of CERCLA, a party who has arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances at a facility may, like other categories of Potentially Responsible Parties, be strictly liable for response costs. Where the PRP has engaged in the sale of a “useful product,” even one known to be hazardous, is not liable as an arranger unless the PRP has taken “intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance.” Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S., 556 U.S. 599, 609-10 (2009)(“BNSF”). Mere knowledge that there might be a discharge of hazardous substances in connection with the transport or use of the product is not sufficient to impose arranger liability. Id. at 611. As a result, “whether an entity is an arranger requires a fact-intensive inquiry that looks beyond the parties’ characterization of the transaction . . . and seeks to discern whether the arrangement was on Congress intended to fall within the scope of CERCLA’s strict-liability provisions. Id. at 610. Just such a “fact-intensive inquiry” was undertaken by the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan last week in Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. NCR Corp., Case No. 1:11-CV-483 (W.D.MI. Sept. 26, 2013), one of a number of cases dealing with the recycling of “broke,” or scraps of carbonless copy paper coated with a PCB-containing emulsion produced by NCR from the mid-1950’s until 1971.
In Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, the plaintiffs alleged that NCR sold, and encouraged others to sell, broke to recyclers rather than dispose of it in other ways because NCR was aware that the recycling process would result in PCB-contaminated effluent, and knew that any other method of disposal would be expensive and difficult. NCR maintained that broke was a useful product which was highly sought after by recyclers and thus it did not “intend” to dispose of any hazardous substance in selling the broke to recyclers.
The Western District Court was having none of that, however. In an opinion detailing NCR’s knowledge of the hazards of PCBs contained in the broke, its failure to disclose those hazardous to its business partners, and its awareness that the recycler’s processing of the broke would necessarily result in the discharge of contaminated effluent, held that “no one with NCR’s knowledge of the situation could have believed that [the] broke was a useful product.” Id. at *20. Specifically, the Court found that by 1969, NCR “clear[ly] and unequivocal[ly]” knew that selling broke to recyclers was “facilitating” the disposal of a hazardous substance and thus not legitimate “attempts to sell a genuinely useful product.” Id. This conclusion was supported, in particular, by the fact that from 1969 to 1971, NCR was “scrambling to find alternative ways of disposing of the . . . broke, rather than selling it to paper recyclers,” an acknowledgement that NCR knew that the broke was a “legal liability, not a useful product.” Id. at 19-21. Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP thus stands as a blueprint for other courts to follow in determining whether an entity’s knowledge of the hazardous properties of its waste products, and the manner in which such products would be processed by a buyer, is sufficient to make the entity an arranger strictly liable under CERCLA.