Opinion ID: 2971540
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Milford’s actions were “removal”

Text: The district court also denied recovery based on its finding that Milford’s monitoring and investigation costs were not recoverable as “removal” costs subject to lesser requirements under the National Contingency Plan (NCP). But Milford’s costs fall squarely into the statutory definition of removal, which includes “such actions as may be necessary to monitor, assess, and evaluate the release or threat of release of hazardous substances.” 42 U.S.C. § 9601(23). The district court itself concluded that, based on § 9601(23), that “this suit is a cost recovery action for ‘removal’ costs, which may include preliminary investigative and evaluative costs.” The court went on, however, to state that “[r]emoval actions are shortterm responses . . . taken in response to an immediate threat to the public welfare or to the environment.” It concluded that Milford failed at trial to present evidence “of an immediate threat,” and therefore Milford’s response “cannot properly be characterized as a ‘removal’ action.” (Id.) We acknowledge the point that this court repeatedly has observed that removal actions are frequently short-term actions in response to an emergency, see, e.g., Barmet Aluminum Corp. v. Reilly, 927 F.2d 289, 291 (6th Cir. 1991) (“Removal refers to short-term action taken to halt any immediate risks posed by hazardous wastes.”); Franklin County Convention Facilities Auth., 240 F.3d 540 n.3 (“Removal actions . . . usually occur in the context of an emergency, and are considered temporary solutions.”). But we have never held that such characteristics are requirements for finding the costs of an action recoverable as removal costs. See, e.g., Barmet, 927 F.2d at 291; Kelley v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 17 F.3d 836, 843–44 (6th Cir. 1994) (giving removal a “broad interpretation”). The district court also denied recovery because Milford “made no effort to . . . comply with the . . . NCP in conducting its response actions.” But this court has held that consistency with the NCP is not required for recovery of monitoring and investigation costs. Donahey v. Bogle, 987 F.2d 1250, 1255 (6th Cir. 1993), vacated on other grounds, 512 U.S. 1201 (1994).1 1 We find nothing in CERCLA that exempts such costs from the requirements of the NCP. Nonetheless, Donahey is the established rule of this circuit, and we are bound to follow it. No. 03-1597 Village of Milford v. K-H Holding Corp., et al. Page 6 Thus the district court erred in denying recovery on the grounds (1) that Milford’s monitoring and investigation costs are not recoverable as “removal” costs and (2) that Milford failed to comply with the NCP. 3. Safeness of the water does not negate the necessity of all response costs The district court evaluated Milford’s response costs as not “necessary,” in part because Milford’s water always met federal safe drinking water standards. Water’s safeness for drinking may be an appropriate factor to consider in determining whether particular response costs were reasonable. For example, it might be unreasonable to remove all contaminants from water that is safe to drink and certain to be safe from further contamination. But where a release has occurred and there may be potential for further contamination, some response costs will almost always be reasonable, to ensure that the water remains safe. See Artesian Water Co. v. Gov’t of New Castle County, 851 F.2d 643, 651 (3d Cir. 1988) (response costs incurred to ensure that water supply “remained uncontaminated” were reasonable). CERCLA plaintiffs cannot be expected to wait until their water is unsafe to take responsive actions. Milford’s wells were contaminated and without further study Milford could not know whether its water would become unsafe for drinking in the near future. Some monitoring and studies to evaluate the situation were reasonable under these circumstances. As a result, the present safeness of the water was not a sufficient ground upon which the district court could find that all Milford’s costs were not necessary. 4. Duplicative studies do not negate necessity The district court also concluded that Milford’s monitoring activities were not necessary in part because the release “was already being successfully investigated and treated by K-H under the supervision of the MDEQ.” A CERCLA plaintiff’s investigatory activities are not unreasonable and therefore not necessary merely because they duplicate studies that the alleged polluter has already performed. See Artesian Water Co., 851 F.2d at 651 (“We find nothing in CERCLA requiring [a plaintiff] to rely solely on the state’s preliminary measures, rather than to make its own appraisal.”). Milford was reasonable to conduct studies of its own. MDNR directed Milford to monitor its wells and perform studies, and MDEQ relied upon Milford’s studies in determining that K-H was a PRP. Further, because K-H used its studies to deny responsibility for the contamination of Milford’s wells, it was especially reasonable for Milford to continue its efforts to learn the source of the contamination. Given that duplication in itself does not equate to unreasonableness, on remand the district court may review the duplicated efforts to reevaluate their necessity or excessiveness.