Reference no: EM132258603

Central to this CERCLA case is the history of the site at issue here—approximately forty-three acres. As a result of decades of phosphate fertilizer production, the westernmost thirty-four acres of the site require remediation of soils contaminated with arsenic, lead, and other hazardous substances. From 1884 to the early 1900s, seven phosphate fertilizer plants operated in close proximity to the site and provided potential sources for pyrite waste that may have been disposed of on the site prior to 1906. Smith Fertilizer & Phosphate Company, now known as Smith Developers, purchased the site in 1906. Smith manufactured phosphate fertilizer at the site by reacting sulfuric acid with phosphate rock. Planters produced the sulfuric acid for the process on-site, and stored the acid in lead-lined tanks. Prior to the 1930s, Smith generated a pyrite slag byproduct containing high concentrations of arsenic and lead. Smith spread the slag byproduct to stabilize roads on the site. This accounts for the vast majority of arsenic and lead contamination found on the site today. Smith continued operating its fertilizer production plant on the site until 1966. On June 30, 1966, Smith sold the site—including the plant and its equipment—to Jones Corporation. Jones continued operations of the acid and fertilizer plants until 1972. Jones’ superphosphate fertilizer production generated dust that contained elevated levels of arsenic and lead, and contributed to arsenic and lead soil contamination By October 1972, Jones had cease all fertilizer production on the site. The site remained inactive until 1977, when Jones began to dismantle the remaining structures, a process completed in January 1981. All told, construction and demolition activities between 1971 and 1981 affected nearly eighty percent of the area of contaminated soils that needs to be remediated as part of the site’s cleanup. In May 1985, Jones sold the site to B&C. B&C, who had acquired the site from Jones in 1985, were unaware of any contamination at the site. They first became aware of the presence of hazardous substances at the site in 1990. B&C intended to subdivide and lease the site, and the record contains no evidence that they introduced any new hazardous substances to the site. However, even after learning of the possibility (and ultimate existence) of hazardous substances on the site, B&C undertook site-wide earth-moving activities, including the construction of a street extension, the addition of water and sewer lines, excavation and grading, and the construction of several detention ponds. As late as 1998, B&C undertook earth-moving activities in areas with "discolored" and "contaminated" soils, and destroyed on-site wetlands along the Nearby River. However, they also added a four-to six inch limestone run of crusher cover over the majority of the site, which mitigated risks of acute exposure to the site’s contaminated soils In December 1990, B&C contracted to sell two acres of the site to Logistics Express. In December 1991, Logistics Express directed and paid for the excavation of a 1380-cubic-foot pond, two asphalt driveways, and extended sewer and water lines on the site. Contractors for Logistics Express also stripped six inches of topsoil and graded and proof-rolled the land. A month later, B&C conveyed the two-acre parcel to Logistics Express’s president, Robin Hood, who leased it to Logistics Express to operate a dropyard. During its tenure, Logistics Express filled in the pond, and added crushed limestone to cover the entire parcel. Although Logistics Express did not introduce any arsenic or lead to its leasehold, both contaminate its leasehold’s soil. Robin Hood continued to own, and Logistics Express continues to lease, this parcel to this day. Finally, in November 2003, B&C sold their remaining acerage of the site to Smith, Inc., for $2.7 million. Smith, Inc. purchased the site to include it as a portion of its Great Beauty Development—a sustainable, mixed-use project. As with other parcels within the project, Smith, Inc. purchased the site with knowledge of, and the intent to remediate, the contaminated soils. For several years, Smith Inc. allowed a trash pile to accumulate on its parcel. Recently, Smith Inc. hired NoMore-waste to remove all the contamination from the site as required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under CERCLA 42 U.S.C. Section 9607.

Who are the PRP’s in this instance, and if any are liable, how will the costs of cleanup be apportioned?