ELR Citation: ELR 20737
No(s). 85-502 MMS (D. Del. Feb 2, 1990)

The court holds that corporations that approve shipments of raw material to a site, purchase all of its output, and provide names of raw material suppliers are not liable for contribution to response cost recovery under §§107(a) and 113(f)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Defendants in a CERCLA cost recovery suit originally brought by the United States sought contribution from third parties. The court first holds that the transcript of an interview with a witness is not admissible in considering a motion for summary judgment. The court next holds that a corporation that approves shipments of raw material to a site, provides technical advice on operating the site, provides a piece of equipment for the site, and purchases all of its output at less than one-half of market price is not necessarily an operator of the site or a joint venturer with the site operator. The court holds that a corporation that provides names of raw material suppliers to a site operator is not necessarily a waste generator. Under CERCLA case law, waste generators are those who have the authority to control the handling and disposal of the waste.

[A prior opinion in this case appears at 18 ELR 20405.]

Counsel for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiffs
Somers S. Price Jr.
Potter, Anderson & Corroon
350 Delaware Trust Bldg., P.O. Box 951, Wilmington DE 19899-0951
(302) 658-6771

Abbi L. Cohen
Dechert, Price & Rhoades
3400 Centre Sq. W., 1500 Market St., Philadelphia PA 19102
(215) 981-2000

Counsel for Third-Party Defendants
Beth H. Christman
Casarino, Christman & Shalk
222 Delaware Ave., Ste. 1220, P.O. Box 1276, Wilmington DE 19899
(301) 594-4500

John T. Ward, Thomas J. Minton
Quinn, Ward & Kershaw
113 W. Monument St., Baltimore MD 21201
(301) 685-6700