In EPEC Polymers, Inc. v. NL Industries Inc., Civ. Action No. 12-3842 (D.N.J. May 24, 2013), defendant NL Industries Inc. owned property on one side of the Raritan River, where it produced and discharged waste to the river. Plaintiff EPEC Polymers, Inc. owned property on the opposite side of the river. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineer had dredged the river and the dredging spoils had been placed on EPEC’s property. These dredged spoils contained, in part, NL’s waste. EPEC spent over $2 million investigating the contamination on its property.
EPEC sued NL under several statutory and common law theories of recovery seeking to recoup its cleanup costs from NL. One of EPEC’s claim was that under CERCLA’s owner/operator liability section, NL was liable. That provision imposes liability on any person who owned or operated the facility at the time of the disposal of a hazardous substance.
NL argued that it cannot be held liable as an owner/operator because it did not own the site at which the cleanup is being conducted. Specifically, NL stated that its property “is not the facility at which hazardous waste came to be located or where EPEC allegedly has incurred ‘response costs’ for which it now seeks recovery under CERCLA.” Therefore, NL reasoned that it could not be held liable as an owner or operator of the facility under CERCLA’s owner/operator liability provision.
The Court rejected this argument and broadly interpreted the definition of facility holding that NL’s property is the “facility” for the purposes of owner/operator liability. Thus, NL can be held liable as an owner/operator under CERCLA even though it did not own or operate the property at which the contamination is being remedied. The Court also held that NL can be liable as an arranger under CERCLA’s liability provisions for having arranged for the dumping of its hazardous waste into the river.