## Facts

- EPA incurred removal and remedial response costs addressing extensive hazardous-waste contamination at the Picillo Pig Farm site in Coventry, Rhode Island, following discovery of severe dumping conditions and a major fire.
- American Cyanamid Company and Rohm & Haas Company generated hazardous waste disposed at the site and were treated as potentially responsible parties under CERCLA.
- The United States brought a separate federal action to recover federal response costs after earlier state cost-recovery litigation concerning the same site.
- The court previously granted partial summary judgment on CERCLA liability against both defendants, leaving only the amount of recoverable federal response costs.
- The court appointed a Special Master to conduct evidentiary hearings and evaluate whether claimed costs were adequately supported and recoverable, including whether costs were not inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).
- The Special Master recommended allowing most claimed costs while disallowing a limited amount due to inadequate documentation.
- Both sides objected to aspects of the Special Master’s report, requiring the court to resolve disputes over documentation, cost categories, and NCP consistency.

## Issues

1. Whether the United States proved it incurred recoverable CERCLA response costs at the site and, if so, what amount was recoverable.
2. Whether defendants carried their burden to show that any of the government’s claimed costs were inconsistent with the NCP.
3. What level of evidentiary support CERCLA requires for government cost recovery, including whether summaries and agency cost-tracking records may establish costs without producing every underlying invoice.
4. How much deference the court should give to the Special Master’s factual findings and cost determinations.
5. Whether specific categories of costs (including indirect/overhead and certain enforcement-related litigation costs) qualified as recoverable “response costs.”

## Decision

- The court adopted the Special Master’s report in substantial part and made limited, targeted adjustments to particular cost items.
- The court rejected defendants’ broad attacks on the sufficiency of the government’s cost documentation and on alleged NCP inconsistency.
- The court allowed recovery of the great bulk of the government’s claimed response costs and disallowed only those amounts found inadequately documented.
- The court entered judgment for the United States for the total amount of recoverable response costs as calculated in the court’s final cost table, holding both defendants liable for that sum.

## Legal Principles

- Under CERCLA § 107(a), the United States may recover “all costs of removal or remedial action” it incurred that are “not inconsistent” with the NCP.
- Once the government shows it incurred response costs for actions at the site, those costs are treated as presumptively consistent with the NCP; defendants bear the burden of proving inconsistency.
- CERCLA cost recovery does not require the government to prove each expenditure’s cost-effectiveness as an affirmative element; NCP inconsistency functions as a defense.
- Government cost proof may rest on competent summary evidence, agency accounting systems, and testimony linking costs to response activities; courts may disallow specific items where documentation is clearly insufficient without imposing an invoice-by-invoice requirement for all costs.
- “Response costs” can include direct cleanup costs and reasonably allocable indirect costs (such as certain payroll, travel, and administrative overhead) tied to planning, supervision, implementation, or enforcement of the response action.
- A court may give substantial weight to a Special Master’s fact-finding after evidentiary hearings, particularly on credibility and evaluation of voluminous cost records, while retaining authority to modify discrete cost determinations.

## Conclusion

The court largely affirmed the federal government’s claimed CERCLA response costs for the Picillo site, holding that the United States established incurred costs and that defendants failed to prove NCP inconsistency, while reducing only those amounts lacking adequate documentation and entering a cost-based judgment against both defendants.


United States v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 786 F. Supp. 152 (D.R.I. 1992)