Consolidation Coal Co. v. Georgia Power Co., 781 F.3d 129

Georgia Power sold used electrical transformers at auction in the early 1980s; many contained insulating oil with varying PCB concentrations. Some units were drained before sale; others retained oil.
Ward Transformer bought lots of these transformers, repaired or rebuilt many, and resold them; Ward’s Raleigh site later became PCB-contaminated and placed on the EPA National Priorities List.
Consol and PCS (who funded much of the cleanup) sued Georgia Power under CERCLA § 107(a)(3) as an arranger—alleging Georgia Power intended, at least in part, to dispose of PCBs by selling transformers to Ward.
The district court granted summary judgment for Georgia Power, concluding Georgia Power lacked intent to arrange for disposal; appellants appealed.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed: applying Burlington and the Pneumo Abex factors, the court found no direct or sufficient circumstantial evidence that Georgia Power intended to arrange for PCB disposal in the sales.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Georgia Power’s sale of 101 transformers to Ward made it an arranger under CERCLA § 9607(a)(3)	Sales had a secondary intent to dispose of PCBs (e.g., auctions, drained/exposed units, knowledge of PCBs), so Georgia Power arranged for disposal	Sales were legitimate commercial transactions of useful, marketable transformers; knowledge alone is insufficient for arranger liability	Affirmed summary judgment for Georgia Power: no material fact supporting intent to arrange for PCB disposal
Whether Savannah Electric’s sale of 20 transformers (later merged into Georgia Power) made the successor liable as an arranger	Sales of functioning, oil-containing units that went to Ward supported arranger liability by successor	The units were working and sold for reuse; Pneumo Abex factors weigh against arranger liability	Affirmed: no arranger liability for Savannah Electric/Georgia Power successor

Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599 (2009) (arranger liability requires intent to dispose; mere knowledge that disposal may occur is insufficient)
Pneumo Abex Corp. v. High Point, Thomasville & Denton R. Co., 142 F.3d 769 (4th Cir. 1998) (four-factor test for arranger inquiry: intent to reuse, value, usefulness as sold, state at transfer)
United States v. Cello-Foil Prods., Inc., 100 F.3d 1227 (6th Cir. 1996) (state of mind is central to arranger analysis; factual intent question for factfinder)
NCR Corp. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., 768 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2014) (no arranger liability where hazardous constituent was incidental to sale of valuable product)
Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 893 F.2d 1313 (11th Cir. 1990) (discusses sale of PCB-containing transformers and limits on arranger liability)
United States v. Gen. Elec. Co., 670 F.3d 377 (1st Cir. 2012) (context on arranger liability and hazardous-substance sale situations)