Determining when a person has "arranged" for the
disposal of a hazardous substance has long been difficult.
The Supreme Court brought some clarity to the issue in Burlington
Northern, when it said that:
While it is true that in some instances an entity's
knowledge that its product will be leaked, spilled, dumped, or
otherwise discarded may provide evidence of the entity's intent
to dispose of its hazardous wastes, knowledge alone is insufficient
to prove that an entity "planned for" the disposal,
particularly when the disposal occurs as a peripheral result of the
legitimate sale of an unused, useful product.
In short, intent is necessary. Unfortunately, ambiguity
remains. The most recent manifestation of this ambiguity was
in Thursday's decision in
United States v. Dico, in which the 8th Circuit
reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the
government, finding that genuine disputes of fact precluded entry
of summary judgment.
