Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractliabilityhazardous waste

contractcorporation

Related Cases

Tippins Inc. v. USX Corp., 37 F.3d 87, 39 ERC 1321, 63 USLW 2172, 24 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,486

Facts

In 1987, Tippins signed an agreement to provide equipment for electric arc furnace steelmaking, which included a baghouse. Tippins purchased a used baghouse from USX, which contained EAF dust due to USX's steel manufacturing. Tippins contracted with Petroclean to transport the EAF dust for disposal. After considering various disposal sites, Petroclean identified the Four County Landfill in Indiana as the final disposal location, which Tippins ultimately selected based on Petroclean's recommendations and expertise.

In September 1987, Tippins signed an agreement with Sydney Steel Corporation of Nova Scotia to provide equipment for electric arc furnace (“EAF”) steelmaking. Tippins thereupon contacted a representative of U.S. Realty Development, a division of USX, and inquired about the availability of a baghouse.

Issue

Whether a transporter can be held liable under CERCLA for hazardous waste disposal if it did not select the disposal facility but actively participated in the decision-making process.

We reject Tippins' argument that under § 107(a)(4) a transporter is liable as a responsible party even if it does not “select” the disposal “facility” (in contrast to a “site”).

Rule

Under CERCLA § 107(a)(4), a transporter is liable for hazardous substances if it accepts them for transport to disposal facilities that it has selected or has had substantial input in selecting.

Section 107(a)(4) provides that a responsible party, as defined in subsections 107(a)(1)–(4), shall be liable for “any other necessary costs of response incurred by any other person consistent with the national contingency plan.”

Analysis

The court determined that the phrase 'selected by such person' in CERCLA modifies not only 'sites' but also 'facilities' and 'incineration vessels.' It concluded that a transporter can be liable if it actively participates in the disposal decision to the extent of having substantial input into which facility was ultimately chosen. In this case, Petroclean had significant involvement in the selection process, providing Tippins with options and recommendations, which established its liability as a transporter.

We believe that a person is liable as a transporter not only if it ultimately selects the disposal facility, but also when it actively participates in the disposal decision to the extent of having had substantial input into which facility was ultimately chosen.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's ruling that both USX and Petroclean were liable for the response costs associated with the disposal of EAF dust, as Petroclean had substantial input in the selection of the disposal facility.

Consequently, Petroclean is liable under CERCLA § 107(a)(4) as a transporter which selected the disposal facility.

Who won?

Tippins, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that both USX and Petroclean were liable for the response costs under CERCLA due to their roles in the disposal process.

Tippins alleged that USX had arranged by contract for the disposal of the EAF dust and was liable as an arranger under § 107(a)(3) of CERCLA.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Pinal Creek Group v. Newmont Mining Corp., 352 F.Supp.2d 1037, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,021

U.S. v. Apollo Energies, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 211580

Vine Street LLC v. Borg Warner Corp., 776 F.3d 312, 79 ERC 1977

National Pork Producers Council v. U.S. E.P.A., 635 F.3d 738, 72 ERC 2205

State of Wyo. v. U.S., 933 F.Supp. 1030