# GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
> **Judicial** · FY2006 · — · —
## Case
- **Activity ID:** `600009226`
- **Case Number:** 01-2006-0214
- **Type:** Judicial
- **Lead:** EPA
- **Outcome:** —
- **Penalty assessed:** —
- **Cost recovery:** —
- **Compliance action $:** —
- **Multimedia (multi-env):** —
## Defendants
- GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (complaint) (settlement)
## Summary

EPA filed a cost recovery case against GE in September 2006.  After negotiations and discovery, there was a five day trial in Federal District Court in New Hampshire in November 2008 on the question of GE’s liability.  GE argued it was not liable as an arranger because the hazardous substances it sold were Auseful products.@  The Judge ruled that GE was liable as a person who Aotherwise arranged for disposal of hazardous wastes@ at the Site.  Fletcher=s Paint, located in Milford, New Hampshire, received from GE large quantities of scrap pyranol, which contains PCBs and other hazardous substances.  GE sold this scrap for a minimal price and sometimes gave it to Fletcher=s for free.  GE argued these transactions were the sale of a useful product because Fletcher=s purportedly had a use for the material -- making paint out of the waste and/or re-selling it.  The scrap pyranol that GE did not send to Fletcher=s was disposed in the river, sent to landfills, used as a dust suppressant, and given to employees to use as weed killer.  Fletcher=s used less than 2% of the scrap pyranol to make any product and instead put much of it on the ground as dust suppressant and left drums of scrap pyranol lying around.

After the trial, the parties negotiated a stipulation on recoverable costs and filed cross motions for summary judgment on disputed costs.  The Judge ruled in EPA’s favor on costs.  GE appealed the District Court’s liability finding and its costs ruling in January 2011.  The

---
*Source: [EPA ECHO](https://echo.epa.gov/) · AI Analytics · CC0 1.0*