ELR Citation: ELR 20153
No(s). 07-113 (D. Me. Jul 7, 2009)

A district court ruled that railroad companies that arranged for the disposal of tar, coal, and other waste into Maine's Penobscot River may be held liable under CERCLA. The factual allegations of the complaint sufficiently lay out a plausible claim that the railroads could be PRPs based on their prior operations within the boundaries of the contaminated site. The railroads argued that they could not be held liable because of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent narrowing of "arranger liability" in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1870, 39 ELR 20098 (2009). In Burlington, the Supreme Court specifically acknowledged that the question of who qualifies as a PRP under CERCLA §107(a)(3) is “fact intensive and case specific.” But here, the allegations contained in the complaint exceed the “mere knowledge that spills and leaks continued to occur." Rather, in addition to alleging negligent disposal via spills, the complaint also alleges disposal via sewer lines located on the property. To the extent that the sewer system, which discharged untreated sewage into the river, was owned and operated by the city of Bangor, the railroad's disposal of contamination via the sewer would fall well within the confines of arranger liability—even after Burlington. The court, therefore, denied the railroads' motion to dismiss.