18 F.4th 370
1st Cir.2021Background
- The United States sued Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company (PRIDCO) under CERCLA to recover EPA response costs for the Maunabo Area Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site. PRIDCO owns the property at issue since at least 1968.
- Groundwater under PRIDCO's property contained VOCs (TCE and cis-1,2‑DCE); a contaminated plume beneath the property extends downgradient toward Maunabo Well #1, a public drinking well where the same contaminants were detected above federal limits.
- EPA conducted an RI/FS, solicited comments, issued a Record of Decision (ROD) selecting active air sparging (over monitored natural attenuation) to protect the drinking water supply, and later implemented the remedy.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the United States on liability (§107(a)), denied PRIDCO’s affirmative defenses including the contiguous‑property exception (§9607(q)), and awarded approximately $5.49 million in past response costs (plus future costs).
- PRIDCO appealed, arguing (1) the United States failed to prove a ‘‘release from’’ the Property (source identification required), (2) the contiguous‑property exception applies, and (3) the EPA’s remedy selection was arbitrary and review improperly limited to the administrative record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Prima facie §107(a) "release" element | United States: contaminated groundwater on PRIDCO's facility and a plume migrating to Maunabo Well satisfy the release element. | PRIDCO: plaintiff must identify a source or show contamination released "from" the surface of PRIDCO's property. | Release satisfied by contaminated groundwater and downgradient migration to the public well; owner strict liability applies and plaintiff need not identify source. |
| 2) Contiguous‑property owner exception (§9607(q)) | United States: PRIDCO failed to meet statutory elements, including proving lack of affiliation with the party responsible for release. | PRIDCO: contamination migrated from neighboring property and PRIDCO did not cause it. | PRIDCO failed to prove unaffiliation or meet other statutory requirements by preponderance; exception not met. |
| 3) Scope of judicial review of remedy selection | United States: review is limited to the EPA administrative record under §113(j); extra‑record expert evidence is improper. | PRIDCO: court should consider extra‑record materials (post‑ROD studies/expert) to test remedy adequacy. | Review properly limited to the administrative record; district court did not abuse discretion in so limiting review. |
| 4) Adequacy of remedy (air sparging vs MNA) | United States/EPA: ROD reasonably compared alternatives and chose air sparging to timely protect Maunabo Well #1. | PRIDCO: monitored natural attenuation (cheaper) was adequate and EPA failed to adequately consider it. | EPA adequately considered alternatives and reasonably selected air sparging; selection not arbitrary or capricious. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atl. Richfield Co. v. Christian, 140 S. Ct. 1335 (2020) (explaining CERCLA’s purpose and strict‑liability framework)
- Dedham Water Co. v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc., 889 F.2d 1146 (1st Cir. 1989) (statutory history shows CERCLA imposes liability without requiring causation by owner)
- United States v. JG‑24, Inc., 478 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2007) (administrative‑record limitation governs judicial review under §113(j))
- United States v. CDMG Realty Co., 96 F.3d 706 (3d Cir. 1996) ("release" construed to include passive migration/leaching)
- ABB Indus. Sys., Inc. v. Prime Tech., Inc., 120 F.3d 351 (2d Cir. 1997) (definition of "release" includes passive migration)
- Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 596 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (property owners strictly liable for hazardous materials found on their property)
- United States v. Ne. Pharm. & Chem. Co., 810 F.2d 726 (8th Cir. 1986) (EPA’s selection of cleanup method afforded deference as a technical decision)
- City of Bangor v. Citizens Commc'ns Co., 532 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 2008) (presumption of consistency with the national contingency plan and review standards)