287 F. Supp. 3d 133
D.P.R.2017Background
- The United States sued PRIDCO under CERCLA §107 seeking reimbursement of EPA response costs for a cis-1,2-DCE groundwater plume beneath PRIDCO-owned property in Maunabo, Puerto Rico; site listed on the NPL.
- PRIDCO acquired the parcel in 1964 and leased it to various tenants over time; groundwater contamination (TCE → cis-1,2-DCE) was detected in nearby PRASA well and in groundwater beneath the PRIDCO parcel.
- EPA investigated, issued a ROD prescribing air sparging for the cis-1,2-DCE plume, and incurred response costs; PRIDCO’s consultant confirmed hazardous substances in groundwater under the property.
- The court bifurcated the case into Phase I (liability), Phase II (costs), Phase III (contribution/allocation); the instant ruling addresses liability only.
- PRIDCO sought Rule 56(d) deferral pending discovery about source and timing of contamination and asserted several defenses: third‑party/innocent landowner, contiguous‑owner, secured‑creditor, act of God, and divisibility; several other affirmative defenses were previously stricken.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PRIDCO is liable as an "owner" under CERCLA §107 | United States: PRIDCO is the facility owner and thus a PRP strictly liable for releases on the property | PRIDCO: it only holds bare title / did not manage the site so cannot be an "owner" for CERCLA purposes | PRIDCO is an owner as a matter of law; bare legal title does not avoid §107 liability (summary judgment for liability granted) |
| Whether a "release" element is satisfied by contaminated groundwater under the property | United States: presence of cis-1,2-DCE in groundwater beneath the parcel constitutes a release under CERCLA | PRIDCO: lack of surface soil contamination and unresolved source/date of plume means no qualifying release from the property | Presence of hazardous substances in subsurface groundwater satisfies the release element; causation/ source is irrelevant to prima facie §107 liability |
| Whether the case should be deferred under Rule 56(d) for more discovery on contamination source | United States: liability can be decided without resolving source; Phase II/III will handle allocation and discovery of source | PRIDCO: outstanding discovery is key to defenses (third‑party, contiguous, timing) and requires deferral | Rule 56(d) denied—because liability under §107 does not require proof of source/causation and case was trifurcated; discovery on source will proceed in later phases |
| Availability of statutory/exemptive defenses (innocent landowner / third‑party / contiguous / secured creditor / act of God) | United States: PRIDCO is prima facie liable; many defenses are unsupported or merit denial on summary judgment | PRIDCO: raises multiple defenses—claims innocent landowner, third‑party, contiguous property, secured‑creditor, act of God, divisibility | Court: act of God and divisibility defenses waived/immaterial; secured‑creditor exemption rejected (PRIDCO used parcel to further development, not merely to protect a security interest); third‑party, innocent landowner, and contiguous‑owner defenses survive for now and denied as to summary judgment pending further discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (defining owner/operator concepts under CERCLA)
- Acushnet Co. v. Mohasco, 191 F.3d 69 (1st Cir.) (CERCLA strict liability framework)
- United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128 (CERCLA liability scope; PRP exposure)
- Chevron Mining Inc. v. United States, 863 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir.) (bare title does not immunize owner from §107 liability)
- Waterville Indus., Inc. v. Finance Auth. of Me., 984 F.2d 549 (1st Cir.) (secured creditor exemption analysis)