The Court explained that control over the site does not render the controlling party an operator, unless that control involves a direct involvement in the release or disposal of the contaminants. For example, the government did not direct how the raw materials should be processed, how the chemicals were to be made, or how waste was to be handled. In Bestfoods, the Supreme Court defined an “operator” for CERCLA liability as one that “manages, directs, or conducts operations specifically related to pollution.” The Third Circuit held that the government’s involvement at the plant did not make it an “operator” under CERCLA because the government’s involvement was not specifically related to pollution. Supreme Court’s 1998 opinion in United States v. PPG argued that the government was an “operator” of the plant within the meaning of CERCLA because of the government involvement and control over operations at the plant. Persons who “operated” the facility at the time of disposal of hazardous substance are among the potentially responsible parties. Under CERCLA, parties who undertake cleanup efforts at contaminated sites may seek contribution from any other person who is liable or potentially liable for the contamination. PPG sued the government under CERCLA, seeking contribution costs. Decades later, PPG entered into agreements with the State of New Jersey to remediate the contamination. The hazardous waste generated by the manufacturing process over the course of the plant’s life was mostly stockpiled outdoors, and eventually seeped into the soil and groundwater. PPG’s predecessor responded to the demand for output by switching to a quicker process that generated more waste. In addition to controlling the price of raw materials, involving itself in labor issues, and dictating production schedules, the government issued a directive to chromium processing plants to increase output. During World War II, the government regulated the production of chromium, a critical war material that was used for forging armor for ships and tanks, anodizing aluminum for aircrafts, and tanning leather for soldiers’ boots. Plaintiff PPG Industries’ (“PPG’s”) predecessor operated a chemical plant in New Jersey which processed chromium chemicals. The court upheld the district court’s ruling that the government was not an operator because it did not exert control over the plant’s pollution-related activities rather, its actions were consistent with the general wartime influence over the industry. United States, a case which considered whether the government’s involvement at a chromium processing plant during World War II made it an “operator” liable for cleanup costs under Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). Starting from late 1930s, German engine manufacturers like BMW had built air-cooled superchargers the Armaments Ministry knew this and allocated nickel accordingly, hence the "shortage.On May 4, 2020, the Third Circuit issued a decision in PPG Industries v. Considering the total nickel use of the entire jet engine program - about 40 tons by my calculation - fits within a rounding error of the nickel stocks in 1944, I'm arguing that one major reason the jet engine industry felt the constraint was precisely because they had demonstrated the ability to produce jet engines without much nickel at all. What my article draft is doing is an attempt to sharpen the theory circulating among some circles: that the raw material (in particular, nickel) shortage caused the Germans to develop innovative solutions to overcome the shortage. They did find a nice workaround by using air-cooled turbine blades, though. Apparently these were the key to high-temperature jet engine alloys like Nimonic that the Germans didn't really have. May have to make the trip eventually, although the example is adequate with just the nickel statistics. here's the nickel supplies, consumption and stocks, in metric tons, 1939-1944: aircraft, tanks, artillery, U-boats) would be very welcome! I was wondering if anyone here could help me out with a bit of data and a reference as to where it came from - or point me to a (preferably English language) source?Īlso, any examples of quantities of nickel and chromium used in actual equipment (e.g. 264 - but I don't have access to the full Survey. I managed to find a source for nickel - there's apparently a table "German nickel supplies, consumption, and stocks" on the U.S. However, I realized that I'm lacking statistics on the chromium supplies and use. I'm a PhD student writing about history of technology and innovations, and I'm currently writing a paper where one of the examples used is the substitution of nickel and chromium in German jet engines.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |