## Facts

- Several pesticide manufacturers contracted with an independent formulator, Aidex Corporation, to convert technical-grade pesticide ingredients into commercial products by mixing, packaging, and shipping according to manufacturers’ specifications.
- The government alleged the manufacturers owned the active ingredients, the work in process, and the finished products while the materials were at Aidex’s facility.
- The formulation process allegedly generated pesticide-containing wastes through spills, equipment cleaning, and off-specification batches.
- EPA investigations found extensive contamination at the Aidex site affecting containers, soil, wildlife, and shallow groundwater, threatening irrigation and drinking-water supplies.
- EPA and Iowa conducted response actions funded through the Superfund program and incurred more than $10 million in costs.
- The United States sued to recover response costs under CERCLA and sought relief under RCRA, alleging the manufacturers were responsible for hazardous-waste disposal/handling connected to the Aidex operation.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint stated a claim that the manufacturers “arranged for” disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at the Aidex facility, triggering CERCLA § 107(a) liability.
2. Whether the complaint stated a claim under RCRA’s imminent-endangerment provision that the manufacturers “contributed to” the handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of hazardous waste, including where cleanup actions had already occurred.

## Decision

- Affirmed the district court’s refusal to dismiss the CERCLA claim: the complaint plausibly alleged arranger liability.
- Reversed the district court’s dismissal of the RCRA claim: the complaint plausibly alleged contributor liability and an imminent-and-substantial-endangerment theory was not barred by prior cleanup.
- Remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- CERCLA is construed broadly to place cleanup costs on parties responsible for hazardous-substance disposal problems.
- A CERCLA “arranger” claim may be adequately pleaded where a defendant contracts for a process that predictably generates hazardous waste and retains ownership of the hazardous substances during the process, even without direct involvement in disposal operations.
- RCRA’s imminent-endangerment provision is construed broadly to allow courts to order relief necessary to protect public health and the environment.
- A party may “contribute to” hazardous-waste disposal under RCRA through its role in initiating an inherently waste-generating activity involving hazardous substances it owns, without showing day-to-day control over the contractor’s waste-disposal methods.
- Completion of cleanup before suit does not categorically defeat a pleaded claim under RCRA’s imminent-endangerment provision.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit held that allegations of retained ownership and contracting for an inherently waste-generating pesticide formulation process were sufficient at the pleading stage to proceed under both CERCLA arranger liability and RCRA contributor liability theories, and it remanded for further litigation.


United States v. Aceto Agric. Chems. Corp., 872 F.2d 1373 (8th Cir. 1989)