Defending Potential PRP Status at Superfund Site
- A primary responsible party to Superfund Site attempts to identify Client as PRP based upon an assumption that Client historically utilized solvents
- Alleged EECs client should be included as a participant in cost allocation
- Evaluated detailed property and operation history of the site to pre-World War II
- Reviewed environmental investigation and laboratory reports dating back to the early 1980’s to 2016
- Refuted responsible parties claim that they did not use the contaminants of concern (COCs), primarily tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE)
- Identified evidence of direct use and disposal of chemicals of concern by the responsible party
- Analysis of aerial photographs, historic maps, and department of defense documents
- Provided evidence to EPA to support clients removal as a PRP
EEC Environmental (EEC) was retained by a major commercial printer to review allegations by a major oil company that the commercial printer was responsible for chlorinated VOCs detected in the vicinity of its facility. The oil company previously operated a rubber production plant dating back to World War II in the area of concern. The commercial printing facility was located on the historic footprint of the rubber plant, that is now a Superfund Site and adjacent to properties with known significant VOC contamination.
EEC was able to establish that the oil company made misleading and factually incorrect technical statements that would lead a person unfamiliar with the complete history of the site to believe that client was responsible for tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) contamination beneath the site.
EEC was able to establish that PCE/TCE was most likely utilized by the oil company, that the oil company disposed of PCE/TCE wastes along with other chemicals associated with the rubber plant in pits and trenches and likely utilized PCE/TCE at several facilities located on the property, as demonstrated by several detections of these contaminants at various locations within the larger property well away from the clients property.
Further, the oil company made no mention of the significant PCE/TCE contamination on the adjacent offsite property that has been proven to have migrated beneath the client’s site at very high concentrations. After meeting with the EPA, the client was removed as a responsible party.