Latest Case: PPG Industries Inc. v. United States (Environmental Law)

Law in the Time of Corona

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN, LAWRENCE M. FRIEDMAN

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman and Stanford law professor Lawrence M. Friedman discuss the implications of COVID-19 on the execution of wills and marriage. Grossman and Friedman argue that the COVID-19 crisis demonstrates how quickly and universally Americans rush into court, demanding from judges legal solutions to ethical, political, and social issues.

Read More

PPG Industries Inc. v. United States

Docket: 19-1165

Opinion Date: May 4, 2020

Judge: D. Michael Fisher

Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law

Beginning around 1915, NPRC operated a Jersey City chemical plant, turning chromite ore into chromium chemicals for dyeing cloth and tanning leather. The process generated hazardous chemical waste that eventually seeped into the soil and groundwater. During both World Wars, the production of chromium chemicals was regulated. During World War II, the government designated chromium chemicals as “critical” war materials and implemented controls concerning labor conditions, supplies, subsidies, and pricing. In 1944, the Chemicals Bureau officially recommended that producers switch to a quicker, more wasteful process. Government orders did not direct how the ores were to be processed, how the chemicals were to be made, or how waste should be handled. PPG purchased the site in 1954 and processed chromium chemicals there until 1963, using essentially the same processes as NPRC, including stockpiling the waste outdoors. PPG has spent $367 million to remediate the site and other contaminated areas. PPG sued under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9607, seeking recovery and contribution for costs associated with cleanup. After four years of discovery, the district court granted the government summary judgment. The Third Circuit affirmed. Governmental involvement with the plant during the wars did not make it an “operator” liable for the cleanup costs associated with the waste. Governmental actions in relation to the plant were consistent with general wartime influence over the industry and did not extend to control over pollution-related activities.