In re John A. Biewer Co. of Ohio
An administrative law judge (ALJ) found a parent corporation not liable under RCRA for its subsidiary's actions in failing to remove contaminated soils around a drip pad after closing its facility. EPA did not advance any substantial facts to support the claim that the corporate veil should be pierced or that the parent company is directly liable for the alleged violations at the subsidiary's facility. Conversely, the parent company put forward substantial evidence to support its contention that, as a matter of law, it cannot be held liable under either of those theories. There was no material evidence that the "corporate form was so ignored, controlled or manipulated that it was merely the instrumentality of another and that allowing its use would constitute a fraud or promote injustice." The evidence EPA pointed to does not show that the parent and subsidiary here were separate in name only, nor that they operated as a single entity, ignoring corporate boundaries. The evidence EPA highlighted reflected nothing more than commonplace arrangements between parent and subsidiary corporations.