In a cost recovery action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, judgment for plaintiff U.S. is affirmed where: 1) defendant was unable to establish that the Army used the chemical at issue at the contested site; 2) the court reasonably chose not to credit the testimony of veterans who claimed the chemical was used by the Army; and 3) defendant failed to rebut the presumption that the EPA's efforts to list the site on the National Priorities List were consistent with a national contingency plan.
Filed December 29, 2009
Opinion by Judge Murphy
Robert M. Jackson, Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP, Detroit, MI
Brian C. Toth, Scott Pemberton, Catherine R. Sanders, Environment & Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC