EPA has identified the former property of Dirty Corporation, which operated on t
ID: 1866631 • Letter: E
Question
EPA has identified the former property of Dirty Corporation, which operated on the property a waste disposal facility in the 1960’s, as a Superfund site contaminated with hazardous substances. EPA is determining who to sue to collect for remediation costs. Note whether the following companies/individuals are liable as “PRPs” under CERCLA and why.
1. ABC Corporation which sent relevant hazardous waste to the site 20 years ago pursuant to the direction of the town government but which does not operate in the area any more.
2. The owner of the local diner who arranged to have his waste (including relevant hazardous waste) taken by Big Truck Co. to the site.
3. Clean Corporation which bought most of the site in 1992 and has done nothing to contribute to contamination of the site.
4. Friendly Bank which owns a portion of the site due to a foreclosure action against Dirty Corporation and is attempting to sell the property.
5. The owner of the dry cleaners who put his waste (including relevant hazardous waste) in the municipal waste disposal bins.
6. The owner of Fun Campground which hired Big Truck Co. to dispose of 100 gallons of its solid waste (containing relevant hazardous substances)at the site.
Explanation / Answer
ABC Corporation which sent relevant hazardous waste to the site 20 years ago pursuant to the direction of the town government but which does not operate in the area anymore. ABC Corporation does not liable as “PRPs” under CERCLA because it sent hazardous waste it may be arranger and transporter as per the definition of the PRP but as per the direction the local government, so he cannot be sued. It is irrelevant whether it is operated or not operated in the area.
The owner of the local diner who arranged to have his waste (including relevant hazardous waste) taken by Big Truck Co. to the site. The owner of the local diner (Arranger) and the Big Truck Co.(Transporter) are liable as “PRPs” under CERCLA because the owner of local diner arranged the transporter Big Truck Co. to transport waste which includes hazardous material and the Big Truck Co. accepted to transport the disposal of that waste. Hence EPA can sue both for the remediation costs
3.Clean Corporation which bought most of the site in 1992 and has done nothing to contribute to contamination of the site. Clean Corporation is Not liable as “PRPs” under CERCLA because it does not come under the definition of PRP. Here clean corporation bought the site and it is clearly said that it is not responsible for the contamination of the site. Hence EPA can sue clean corporation but not as per PRP but it can as it did nothing to the site the hazardous waste can pollute health and environment.
4.Friendly Bank which owns a portion of the site due to a foreclosure action against Dirty Corporation and is attempting to sell the property. The friendly bank is not liable as “PRPs” under CERCLA whereas dirty corporation can be liable for the remediation costs of the site. Hence EPA Can sue Dirty corporation but cannot sue Friendly Bank.
5.The owner of the dry cleaners who put his waste (including relevant hazardous waste) in the municipal waste disposal bins. as per te rules of PRP, he has put his waste in the municipal waste of the disposal bins so they can sue him.
6.The owner of Fun Campground which hired Big Truck Co. to dispose of 100 gallons of its solid waste (containing relevant hazardous substances)at the site, as per the rules of PRP
There are four classes of Superfund liable parties:
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.