Source: https://www.taftlaw.com/news-events/law-bulletins/ninth-circuit-finds-manufacturers-of-dry-cleaning-equipment-not-liable-under-cercla-or-rcra
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 01:04:41+00:00

Document:
Less than a week later, the Ninth Circuit in Hinds Investments, L.P. v. Angioli, et al. extended similar protection to manufacturers alleged to have contributed to an imminent and substantial endangerment in a RCRA citizens suit.4 The Hinds court affirmed dismissal of the claims against the manufacturer of equipment used by a dry cleaner that processed PCE because RCRA “requires that a defendant be actively involved in or have some degree of control over the waste disposal process to be liable…”.5 The Team Enterprises and Hinds decisions, taken together, close the door in the Ninth Circuit to CERCLA and RCRA liability in the absence of a specific intent of the manufacturer to dispose.
The plaintiff in Team Enterprises endeavored to satisfy the “intent to dispose” requirement of Burlington Northern by asserting that intent could be inferred from the design of the PCE recycling equipment to make disposal inevitable.6 The court found that there was a possibility that the defendant might pour PCE down the drain, and thereby cause subsurface contamination when PCE leaked from the sewers, but declined to find “that [the defendant] intended the disposal of PCE”7….what is required to find arranger liability under §107 of CERCLA.
For more information, please contact Kim Burke or any member of Taft's Environmental Practice Group.
1Team Enterprises, LLC v. Western Investment Real Estate Trust, -- F.3d --, 2011 WL 3075759 (C.A. 9 (Cal)).
2Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances v. Alco Pac., Inc., 508 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2007). See also, Kim K. Burke, Annual Meeting of American Bar Association, Section of Environment: Useful Product Defense Under CERCLA, Omni Shoreham Hotel, Washington, DC (October 9, 2003).
3Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry.Co. v. United States, -- U.S. --, 129 S.Ct. 1870, 173 L.Ed.2d 812 (2009).
4Hinds Investments, L.P. v. Angioli, et al., -- F.3d --, 2011 WL 3250461 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)).
5Hinds Investments, L.P. v. Angioli, et al., -- F.3d --, 2011 WL 3250461, at *3 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)).
6Team Enterprises, LLC v. Western Investment Real Estate Trust, -- F.3d --, 2011 WL 3075759, at *3 (C.A. 9 (Cal)).
7Team Enterprises, LLC v. Western Investment Real Estate Trust, -- F.3d --, 2011 WL 3075759, at *3 (C.A. 9 (Cal)(emphasis in original)).
8Team Enterprises, LLC v. Western Investment Real Estate Trust, -- F.3d --, 2011 WL 3075759, at *4 (C.A. 9 (Cal)).
9Team Enterprises, LLC v. Western Investment Real Estate Trust, -- F.3d --, 2011 WL 3075759, at *4 (C.A. 9 (Cal)).
10Team Enterprises, LLC v. Western Investment Real Estate Trust, -- F.3d --, 2011 WL 3075759, at *4 (C.A. 9 (Cal)(emphasis in original)).
11United States v. Shell Oil Co., 294 F.3d 1045, 1055 (9th Cir. 2002)(control over disposal triggered arranger liability).
12The special concurring opinion of Judge St. Eve emphasized that there can be no CERCLA liability for a manufacturer of the PCE recycling equipment because the defendant manufacturer never “owned or possessed” the hazardous substance, as required by CERCLA §107(a)(3).
13Team Enterprises, LLC v. Western Investment Real Estate Trust, -- F.3d --, 2011 WL 3075759, at **4-5 (C.A. 9 (Cal)(emphasis in original)).
14Hinds Investments, L.P. v. Angioli, et al., -- F.3d --, 2011 WL 3250461, at *4 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)).
15Hinds Investments, L.P. v. Angioli, et al., -- F.3d --, 2011 WL 3250461, at *3 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)).
16Hinds Investments, L.P. v. Angioli, et al., -- F.3d --, 2011 WL 3250461, at *4 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)).

References: v. 
 §107
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §107
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.