US and the State of Nebraska v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Union Pacific Corp., and Gould Electronics Inc. Complaint
Dublin Core
Title
US and the State of Nebraska v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Union Pacific Corp., and Gould Electronics Inc. Complaint
Subject
Complaint of liability of Union Pacific Co. and Corp. and Gould Electronics Inc.
Description
This legal complaint documents the accusations of Union Pacific Railroad Co., Union Pacific Corp., and Gould Electronics Inc. to be liable under CERCLA Section 107 to pay for lead contamination remediation and response actions.
This complaint was filed because of the two lead smelting facilities ran by Union Pacific and Gould. Relevantly, “The first and largest smelter to operate in Omaha was the ASARCO facility built at the end of the 19th century on property leased from and owned by UP. The Gould facility was built in the 1950’s”. These facilities were proven to release lead particulate emissions as a routine part of operations and were thus charged with area air and soil contamination in Omaha.
In August 1999, the EPA ordered ASARCO to comply with CERCLA to “perform the necessary removal action” and ASARCO refused to comply with the order. The EPA proceeded to fund removal action, and with this complaint is demanding a refund by the parties responsible for the contamination.
Relevant here is a citation of another artifact, Section 107 of CERCLA that maintains “Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law… (1) the owner and operator of a vessel or a facility, or (2) any person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance owned or operated any facility at which such hazardous substances were disposed of, shall be liable for all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the United States Government or a State”.
This claim for relief states that “Defendants UP and Gould are therefore liable under Sections 107(a)(2) and 113(g)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a)(2), 9613(g)(2), for all costs incurred by the United States in response to releases of hazardous substances at and from the facilities”. This complaint provides a designation of trial location and an anticipation that the Court “find[s] each Defendant jointly and severally liable” for the hazards and for all unreimbursed costs.
This is a valiant first effort, predating all trials, by the EPA to ensure that responsible parties pay. There is no provision of quantifiable liabilities in this complaint, so gauging the harm for which these companies are responsible is quite difficult. One can recognize, however, the first step of identifying responsible parties and asserting their liabilities.
This complaint was filed because of the two lead smelting facilities ran by Union Pacific and Gould. Relevantly, “The first and largest smelter to operate in Omaha was the ASARCO facility built at the end of the 19th century on property leased from and owned by UP. The Gould facility was built in the 1950’s”. These facilities were proven to release lead particulate emissions as a routine part of operations and were thus charged with area air and soil contamination in Omaha.
In August 1999, the EPA ordered ASARCO to comply with CERCLA to “perform the necessary removal action” and ASARCO refused to comply with the order. The EPA proceeded to fund removal action, and with this complaint is demanding a refund by the parties responsible for the contamination.
Relevant here is a citation of another artifact, Section 107 of CERCLA that maintains “Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law… (1) the owner and operator of a vessel or a facility, or (2) any person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance owned or operated any facility at which such hazardous substances were disposed of, shall be liable for all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the United States Government or a State”.
This claim for relief states that “Defendants UP and Gould are therefore liable under Sections 107(a)(2) and 113(g)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a)(2), 9613(g)(2), for all costs incurred by the United States in response to releases of hazardous substances at and from the facilities”. This complaint provides a designation of trial location and an anticipation that the Court “find[s] each Defendant jointly and severally liable” for the hazards and for all unreimbursed costs.
This is a valiant first effort, predating all trials, by the EPA to ensure that responsible parties pay. There is no provision of quantifiable liabilities in this complaint, so gauging the harm for which these companies are responsible is quite difficult. One can recognize, however, the first step of identifying responsible parties and asserting their liabilities.
Creator
The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska
Source
EPA online archives
Date
June 1, 2011
Contributor
US Federal Government (EPA), The State of Nebraska, Union Pacific Railroad Co., Union Pacific Corp., Gould Electronics Inc.
Rights
Public Information
Format
.pdf
Language
English
Type
Legal document: Complaint
Identifier
8:11-cv-00195-LSC -FG3 Doc #1
Collection
Other Media
Citation
The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, “US and the State of Nebraska v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Union Pacific Corp., and Gould Electronics Inc. Complaint,” History of Environmental Inequalities, accessed April 30, 2024, https://steppingintothemap.com/inequalities/items/show/53.
Document Viewer
Embed
Copy the code below into your web page