368 F. Supp. 3d 326
D.P.R.2019Background
- The United States sued Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company (PRIDCO) under CERCLA § 107 seeking recovery of EPA response and enforcement costs related to contaminated groundwater (cis-1,2‑DCE/TCE) at PRIDCO-owned property in Maunabo, Puerto Rico. The site was placed on the NPL and an EPA Record of Decision (2012) selected air sparging for the cis-1,2‑DCE plume.
- The Court previously held PRIDCO prima facie liable in Phase I (liability) because CERCLA imposes strict liability for hazardous substances at a facility; PRIDCO was allowed to pursue affirmative defenses in Phase II.
- PRIDCO asserted the CERCLA third‑party defenses (including innocent landowner/contiguous‑property variants), arguing uncertainty about the true contamination source.
- The United States moved for summary judgment on liability (already resolved) and on costs, seeking $5,398,161.04 in past response costs (investigation/remedy selection/enforcement costs).
- The Court: (1) rejected PRIDCO’s third‑party defense on summary judgment because PRIDCO failed to prove an unrelated third party was the sole cause, and (2) denied summary judgment on costs because genuine factual disputes remain and the United States gave inconsistent descriptions of which response actions underlie the cost claim; the U.S. was ordered to specify the response actions and reconcile cost calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PRIDCO can invoke CERCLA §107(b)(3) third‑party defenses to avoid liability | U.S.: PRIDCO is prima facie liable under CERCLA; burden on PRIDCO to prove third‑party was sole cause | PRIDCO: source unknown; likely an upgradient third party (Navarro); therefore third‑party defense applies | Held: PRIDCO cannot invoke the third‑party defense — it failed to prove an unrelated third party was the sole cause; liability stands (Phase I complete) |
| Whether the EPA’s response actions are presumed consistent with the NCP and thus recoverable | U.S.: EPA actions presumed consistent with NCP; costs recoverable | PRIDCO: EPA actions/costs may be inconsistent with NCP; must be reviewed on the administrative record | Held: EPA actions are presumed consistent, but PRIDCO bears burden to show inconsistency; review of adequacy is limited to the administrative record under arbitrary and capricious standard |
| Whether summary judgment should be entered for the United States for $5,398,161.04 in response costs | U.S.: Affidavits and cost summaries establish entitlement and amount | PRIDCO: disputes as to cost details, missing work‑product/contracts, and which actions underlie costs; challenges to administrative record | Held: Summary judgment on costs denied — genuine disputes over final cost amounts and United States’ inconsistent statements about which response actions underlie the claimed costs |
| Whether the Court should limit judicial review (exclude PRIDCO expert / confine record) | U.S.: seeks to limit review to administrative record and exclude PRIDCO expert opinion | PRIDCO: contends later EPA studies and additional documents belong in the administrative record and expert opinions should be considered | Held: Motion to limit scope of judicial review denied without prejudice; Court ordered U.S. to specify which response actions underlie costs and reconcile inconsistencies before Phase II trial is set |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (recognizing CERCLA's broad authority to command cleanup)
- Acushnet Co. v. Mohasco, 191 F.3d 69 (1st Cir.) (CERCLA creates a strict‑liability regime)
- United States v. Monsanto, 858 F.2d 160 (4th Cir.) (section 107 strict liability; third‑party defense is limited)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden framework)
- Hardage v. United States, 982 F.2d 1436 (10th Cir.) (EPA response actions reviewed under arbitrary and capricious standard; costs consistent with NCP recoverable)
- Domenic Lombardi Realty, Inc. v. United States, 290 F. Supp. 2d 198 (D.R.I.) (defendant bears burden to prove third‑party sole cause for innocent landowner defense)
- JG‑24, Inc. v. United States, 478 F.3d 28 (administrative‑record limitation for review of EPA removal actions)
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Thiokol Corp., 890 F. Supp. 1035 (D. Ga.) (need for full factual record where NCP consistency contested)