Full opinion text
TABLE OF CONTENTS Amended Memorandum Opinion, Damages Phase Cleanup of the IMC Site 981-983 Ottati & Goss Soil Remedy 983 Groundwater 983-985 Groundwater Contamination at Ottati & Goss site 985 Wetlands Contamination 985-986 Pump & Treat Method 986-987 Demolition of the GLCC Building 987 Kingston Fire Dept. Costs 987 Mason & Hangar — Silas Mason Co., Inc. Costs 987 I.T. Corp. Costs 987 EPA Payroll Costs During Ottati & Goss drum removal 987-988 Fencing 988 NUS Corporation 988 Techlaw 988-989 GCA Technology Div. Costs 989 Arthur D. Little, Inc. Costs 989-990 IT Analytical Services Costs 990 Ecology & Environment, Inc. 990-991 Subcontractors Costs Chargeable to GLCC 991 E & E Costs Chargeable to GLCC 991-992 Total E & E Costs Chargeable to GLCC 992 Total E & E Costs Chargeable Ottati & Goss defs. 992 Viar & Co. Costs 992 Peabody Clean Industries 992 Bionetics 992-993 PRC Environmental Management, Inc. 993-994 Dept, of Interior Costs 994 EPA Costs 994-995 Cooperative Agreement Costs, Goldberg-Zoino & Associates Inc. and State of New Hampshire 995-997 Dept, of Justice Costs 997 Prejudgment Interest 997-998 IMC Equitable Off-Set 998-1000 Remedy and Future of the Site 1000 Monitoring 1000-1001 Standard of Review 1001 Cost of Groundwater Remedy 1001-1002 State of N.H. Claims 1002 Town of Kingston 1002-1003 Civil Penalty Assessed 1003 In Re: Order on Motion to Alter, Amend and Clarify EPA’s Liability 1003 IMC Finding 123 1003 Dept, of Justice Costs 1003 EPA Costs 1003 EPA’s Indirect Costs and DOJ Employee Bnfs 1003-1004 Ruling on Fifty-Fifty Division of Costs 1004 Calculation of Credits 1004 NUS Corp. Costs 1004 Geochem Costs 1004-1005 Calculation of Interest 1005 In Re: Order on Money Judgment Ottati & Goss Defendants Liability 1005 IMC & GLCC Defendants Liability 1005 Ottati & Goss Defendants and IMC Joint Liab. 1005-1006 In Re: Order on Motion Pertaining to Future Reponsiibilities of the Defendants Work to be performed on and under the Ottati & Goss Portion of the Site 1006 Work to be performed (GLCC site and the Marsh) 1006 Extraction System 1006-1007 Treatment System 1007 Schedule 1007 Remedial Design/Remedial Action Involving Removal and Disposal of PCB Sediments 1007-1008 Treatability Study 1008 Rededial Designs/Remedial Action Involving Groundwater 1008-1009 General Provisions 1009 Requests 1009 Conclusion 1010 AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION, DAMAGES PHASE LOUGHLIN, District Judge. This case was bifurcated. The liability phase has ended and is reported in U.S. v. Ottati & Goss, 630 F.Supp. 1361 (D.N.H. 1985). The plaintiffs have settled their cases against the following generators who were defendants in the liability trial: Solvents Recovery Service of New England, Inc., General Electric, K.J. Quinn Co., Lilly Chemical Products, Inc., a/k/a Lilly Industrial Coatings, Inc. In order to avoid confusion the liability part of the trial is alluded to as Phase 1 and the damage aspect as Phase 2. After the generator defendants settled with the plaintiffs which was near the end of the Phase 2 trial, the only actual defendant participating in this suit was IMC. There are defendants who either defaulted during Phase 1 or gave up the ghost in Phase 2, namely, Lewis Chemical, Ottati & Goss, Inc., Louis Ottati, Wellington Goss, Senter Transportation Co., Concord Realty Trust, Bernard Senter, Richard French and French Processing Inc. The opinion in Phase 1 at page 1406 briefly alludes to the fact that both IMC and GLCC attempted to clean up their area of the site. The court held in abeyance any detailed comment on this issue because it was particularly germane to Phase 2. To briefly recapitulate the findings of the court relative to liability, The State of New Hampshire under state law procured judgments as follows: International Minerals & Chemical Gorp. (IMC), Great Lakes Container Corp. (GLCC), General Electric Co. (GE), Solvents Recovery Service, Inc. (SRS), Lilly Industrial Coatings, Inc. (Lilly), K.J. Quinn Co., and Lewis Chemical Co. were found liable for nuisance. IMC and GLCC were found liable for having discharged waste to protected waters of the State in violation of the New Hampshire Water Pollution Contract Act, RSA 149:8, 111(a). GLCC, Lewis Chemical, Bernard Senter, Sally Senter and the Concord Realty Trust were found liable under the New Hampshire Hazardous Waste Management Act, RSA 147-A. The Town of Kingston is a plaintiff intervenor. The court found the following parties liable to the Selectmen of the Town of Kingston: Great Lakes Container Corporation, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (for both the Ottati & Goss and GLCC sites), the Clean Water Act (for the GLCC site), and N.H. RSA ch. 147 (for the GLCC site). Bernard Senter and the Concord Realty Trust under RCRA. Louis Ottati, Sr., Wellington Goss, Ottati & Goss, Inc., Richard French and French Processing under RCRA and N.H. RSA ch. 147. With respect to the claims of the United States the court found liable, under both CERCLA and RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6973, defendants General Electric, Solvents Recovery Service, Lilly Industrial Coatings, Inc., K.J. Quinn, Lewis Chemical, Ottati & Goss, Inc., Lewis Ottati, Wellington Goss, Senter Transportation Co., Concord Realty Trust, Bernard Senter, Richard French, French Processing, Inc., Great Lakes Container Corp., and International Minerals & Chemical Corp. The court also found defendant GLCC liable for one violation of Section 309 of the Clean Water Act. With so many issues involved, the court in order to preserve some kind of continuity will attempt to isolate and treat them separately. Some overlapping will be necessary because of the complexity of the issues. CLEANUP OF THE IMC SITE Since the outset of this litigation on May 15, 1980 GLCC and IMC were the only defendants who undertook any remedial action in this case. IMC sent a petition to this court on April 19, 1984 after IMC and GLCC had settled claims against each other. The petition sought to clean up the 5.88 acres of the GLCC site. Permission to clean up the premises was granted on May 24, 1984 by the court. The State of New Hampshire and EPA under the terms of the order had the right to monitor the work being done by IMC during the cleanup period, which commenced in June, 1984, and terminated for all practical purposes in the fall of the same year. Some material had to wait until the early spring of 1985 to be removed. The cleanup was to proceed with federal RCRA and state RSA 147-A statutes. EPA and the State had on-scene coordinators to monitor the work. They had the privilege of making suggestions and if need be, to seek the aid of the court. They also had the authority if need be, to do their own sampling, check the actual cleanup work and investigate any area they deemed needed it. The cleanup work revealed that there were many buried drums in the area. Many had been present prior to IMC’s ownership, going back to Conway and the KSD operations. Some drums were also buried during the IMC tenure, 1973-1976. The State and EPA both had knowledgeable and competent personnel on-site during the cleanup period. IMC also had its own on site coordinator present. IMC spent $2,650,028.13 according to its figures cleaning up the site in 1984-85. Design of the job plans, and specifications cost $56,829.38, supervision by its contractor CDM $124,200.15, on site supervision of Guelzow $46,779.64 and SCA was paid $2,442,208.96 for its cleanup contract. The bid price for the contract was $917,-360.20, but with a cost overrun of $1,524,-848.76. Reasons for the cost overrun were that more contamination was encountered than expected. Over 3,000 drums were found. It was estimated that not more than 300 drums were there. Most of the drums were found in the so-called Kingston Swamp. In Phase I, the court found that site conditions on the Ottati & Goss sites have presented an imminent and substantial endangerment, while conditions in Country Pond do not present such an endangerment. Ottati & Goss, 630 F.Supp. at 1373, 1385, 1394. The court did find that high levels of concentrations of hazardous substances were still present. During the course of the cleanup, suggestions were made and apparently followed. At no time was the work halted or interrupted because of allegations of noncompliance by IMC. The cleanup included preparation of the decontamination pad, scarification and test pitting. The incinerator was also removed. TSCA, 15 U.S.C., §§ 2601-2629 et seq. relates to standards with respect to toxic substances. (PCBs) or polychlorinated biphenyls are included. TSCA requires at a minimum that PCB contaminated soils above 50 parts per million (ppm) be incinerated or landfilled. 40 C.F.R. § 761.60(a)(4). This issue was and is a bone of contention between the EPA and IMC. When IMC commenced its cleanup in 1984 their efforts were to remediate to 50 ppm on the PCBs. Later EPA wanted the standard to be more stringent or 20 ppm. The court rules that the standard in this case is 50 ppm, not 20 ppm. Procedurally, trenches were dug anywhere from four to ten feet deep. If materials were found, efforts were made to dig at least another foot until the area was cleared or water obviated further digging. The trenches generally were 18 feet in width and were started in the Kingston Swamp area. So-called hot spots were excavated and noxious material was removed. Approximately one-third of the site was excavated. Hot spots were identified by using GPR and magnetometry work. There was also test pitting done. The cleanup commenced June 26, 1984 and terminated on October 31, 1984. Contaminated soil was placed on a polyethylene liner to avoid further contamination and was subsequently removed off site. Excavated soil was aerated. The purpose of aerating the soil was to remove the VOCs. Aeration was done by churning; the aerated soil was also trucked in from off-site as a filler. Groundwater levels at times would prohibit any further digging. HNU meters and magnetometers were used for measurement and safety purposes. Soils with PCB contamination over 50 ppm were shipped off-site for disposal, soils with less than 50 ppm were aerated, tested and used for backfill. Approximately 300 plus “full” drums were staged and removed off-site, and approximately 3,500 drums including the full drums, were counted, staged and removed. Additionally approximately 4,000 tons of soils containing PCBs at concentrations of greater than 50 ppm were stockpiled and removed off-site as were approximately 3,000 additional tons of soils excessively contaminated with volatile organic compounds but which did not have PCBs greater than 50 ppm. Leaking drums were overpacked. Little, if any credence was given by the court to the testimony of Paul Lawrence. It is true, as this court found in Phase 1, that there were organic contaminants to a depth of 19 feet. The court also found that the GLCC lagoon area condition was exacerbated by conditions at the Ottati & Goss site and the 1982 operation of the crushing pit by EPA. GLCC or its predecessors were far from lily white either as they contributed most of the contaminants. Subtitle III of RCRA (see also 40 C.F.R. Parts 264 and 265) regulates the management of hazardous waste in order to protect human health and environment. Reference has been made to RCRA “closure” regulations. 50 Fed.Reg. at 47923. For all practical purposes both the Ottati & Goss and GLCC sites have been closed and non-operative since 1981. Remedying many CERCLA sites is similar to closing a RCRA facility. 50 Fed.Reg. 47923; 40 C.F. R. §§ 264.111, 264.112. In addition to meeting ARARS, Section 121(b) requires that EPA select a remedy that utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Pursuant to this requirement, EPA must select a remedy that utilizes treatment solutions that will permanently and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of the hazardous substances, to the maximum extent practicable. Section 121(b) lists several factors which EPA must consider in evaluating the advantages of permanent remedies rather than interim remedies: a. the long-term uncertainties associated with land disposal; (§ 121(b)(1)(A)) b. the goals and requirements of RCRA; (§ 121(b)(1)(B)) c. the persistence, toxicity, mobility and propensities to bioaccumulate of the hazardous substances and constituents; (§ 121(b)(1)(C)) d. the short and long term potential for adverse health effects from human exposure; (§ 121(b)(1)(D)) e. long-term maintenance costs; (§ 121(b)(1)(E)) f. the potential for future remedial action costs if the alternative remedial action in question were to fail; (§ 121(b)(1)(F)) and g. the potential threat to human health and the environment associated with excavation, transportation, and redisposal, or containment. (§ 121(b)(1)(G)). Section 121(b) apparently has a preference for remedies that use treatment or other approaches to destroy the hazardous substances, requiring that such treatment-based or permanent remedies be used to the maximum extent practicable. 42 U.S.C. § 9621(b); U.S. Exhibit 375 (pp. 31-35, 39); Hohman, Tr. Day 38 pp. 62-63, 68-69. There is little question that hazardous substances which have been or now are on site are drawn down to whatever level the groundwater may be at that particular time or season. In some instances, substances hazardous or non-hazardous go into the groundwater from the surface and later resurface again, or they may be in sediments. One of the issues to be decided by the court is whether or not the IMC cleanup of 1984 was efficacious or just an expensive lesson in futility. Everyone was represented at the cleanup. Suggestions that were made to IMC’s supervisors from the evidence presented to this court were acted upon. PCBs for the most part were lowered to the 50 ppm level. There is evidence that the site is not 100% cleaned up (never could be) but the court finds that it is reasonably well cleaned up. It is the further finding of this court that it would be unfair to allow the plaintiffs to change their standards of compliance after IMC has cleaned up within the standards extant when they started to clean up in 1984. The court thus grants IMC’s requests numbered 130 and 123. The cleanup meets the standards as to the maximum extent practicable. The 50 ppm was an acceptable limit in 1984 in this Region. 52 F.Reg. 10688. GZA conducted studies to evaluate the effectiveness of IMC’s cleanup of the 5.88 acres of the GLCC site. Its findings that IMC in its cleanup did not significantly change the high concentrations of VOCs remaining in the soil is not supported by the evidence. While there is evidence in some areas that ppms total of VOC levels exceeded substantially the norm, overall the findings of the court are: the IMC cleanup of the soil contamination substantially cleaned up the VOCs. Ottati & Goss Soil Remedy As part of the settlement by the generators, three of the Ottati & Goss generators, General Electric, SRS, and Lilly have agreed to implement EPA’s selected soil remedy for the Ottati & Goss portion of the site, and to contribute towards the cost of the groundwater remedy for the Ottati & Goss portion of the site. These generators have also agreed to reimburse the United States and the State for a portion of their past costs. Due to this settlement, the court has been informed that it need not address the soil remedy for the Ottati & Goss site. Through a separate settlement, K.J. Quinn has agreed to pay a total of $300,000 to the government. As consideration for these commitments by the four defendants, as is reflected above, the United States has agreed to seek to have the remaining portion of the Ottati & Goss groundwater remedy performed by the the Ottati & Goss defendants: GLCC, Lewis Chemical Co., Louis Ottati, Wellington Goss, Ottati & Goss, Inc., Bernard Senter, Senter Transportation Co., Concord Realty Trust, Richard French and French Processing, Inc. IMC, of course, has assumed the liabilities of GLCC. Groundwater The facts relative to the groundwater are quite complex, when considering the remedy proposed. A concantenation of events evolved around the groundwater controversy. There is the initial dumping of hazardous waste on the Kingston Steel Drum site going back in time to the 1950s. This continued until 1980. In 1979 the Ottati & Goss business venture flowered and shortly withered with dire results. The situation was further exacerbated by the EPA cleanup of the Ottati & Goss site which dumped more hazardous waste on site, which in time percolated into the groundwater. Then occurred the merging of the Ottati & Goss and GLCC plumes eventually heading generally eastward under Route 125 towards the marsh. The marsh, a separate entity, is a story in itself. After the litigation ensued, IMC with remarkable foresight had the acumen to purchase the marsh. To some the marsh is considered a savior, to others a temporary holding action. All agree it is a wetlands and a valuable one. The court agrees with the plaintiffs’ contention that the court has no jurisdiction to consider a challenge to the listing on the National Priorities List. Under Section 113(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(a), this court lacks jurisdiction to hear any challenge from the defendants to EPA’s decision to select a unified remedy for the Ottati & Goss/GLCC site. Section 113(a) provides: Review of any regulation promulgated under this Act may be had upon application by any interested person only in the Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States for the District of Columbia. Any such application shall be made within ninety days from the date of promulgation of such regulations. Any matter with respect to which review could have been obtained under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review, in any civil or criminal proceeding. In October, 1981, EPA listed the Ottati & Goss/Kingston Steel Drum site as a single site on the National Priorities List (NPL) established under Section 105 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9605. See Tinkham v. Reagan, 19 Env’t Rep.Cas. 1742, 1743 (BNA 1983), No. 83-140-L, slip op. (D.N.H. April 14, 1983); U.S. Ecology, Inc., v. Carlson, 21 Env’t Rep.Cas. 2009 (BNA 1984), No. 84-3387, slip op. (C.D.Ill. Oct. 3, 1984), dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, 638 F.Supp. 513 (C.D.Ill. 1986); Eagle-Picher Industries v. EPA, 759 F.2d 905, 911 (D.C.Cir. 1985). At the risk of reiteration, the following is excerpted from Ottati & Goss: Groundwater contamination occurs when contaminants are released and enter the groundwater system. Organic contaminants on the land surface go into the unsaturated zone. In time, the contaminants due to precipitation such as rain or snow melt and are washed down through the unsaturated zone and into the saturated zone. On entering the groundwater system, the contaminants will move with it in whichever direction the groundwater is moving. The entry of chemicals into the groundwater is intermittent. In the saturated zone, the contaminants mix with the groundwater in the aquifer and become dissolved in it. 630 F.Supp. at 1383. New Hampshire has relatively small aquifer systems in comparison to other parts of the country. It does have relatively high water tables. Under RCRA, EPA is charged with ensuring and protecting the quality of groundwater. Contaminated groundwater which has the potential of being usable or potable must be cleaned up to the greatest extent that is feasible. The water on the GLCC site has not been used for drinking purposes for the last twenty years or so. It is also very evident that the aquifer in the site area is very important to the Town of Kingston and contiguous or surrounding areas. The so-called southern tier of southern New Hampshire has shown and continues to show a phenomenal growth. With this growth and increase in population is an ever increasing demand for water. Kingston does not have a municipal water supply and is dependent upon dug wells for its water. 47 Fed.Reg. 32283 in essence states: groundwater is a fragile resource and has unique characteristics. It is difficult to clean up a polluted aquifer. There is a priority to clean up contaminated water to its highest potential use. There are three classes of groundwater. Class I groundwater is irreplaceable or ecologically vital. Class II groundwater includes current and potential sources of drinking water. Class III groundwater is not considered to be a potential source of drinking water because of naturally high salinity or widespread contamination beyond levels that could be cleaned up using methods reasonably employed in treating public water. [A] response to contaminated groundwater generally would be required to achieve a level of pollutants less than the maximum drinking water contaminant levels established under SDWA, 40 C.F.R. §§ 141.11-141.16 (1986), of the groundwater concentration limits established under RCRA, id. § 264.94. See 50 Fed.Reg. 47922 (Nov. 20, 1985). Artesian Water Co. v. Government of New Castle County, 659 F.Supp. 1269, 1296 (D.Del.1987). Levels for arsenic, chromium, lead and nickel found in well 11 all exceed drinking water standards. In all probability well 11 is a background well. Evidence was adduced that nickel up-gradient of the Ottati & Goss and GLCC site exceeded groundwater standards before the surface water entered the site. There is no evidence that continuous bedrock users of wells have sustained any risk to their wells. There isn’t any evidence that anyone drank contaminated water from either of the sites. The top four indicator compounds are benzene, tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene and 1,2 dichloroethane. Groundwater should meet drinking water standards including standards for metals. Groundwater underneath the site is contaminated with pollutants which are in excess of permissible levels. It has to be remediated. The presence of contaminants renders the aquifer and site unusable for future generations until it is cleaned up. There were drinking wells on site before the water became so contaminated by the operations on the GLCC site and for the short period of time that the Ottati & Goss site was operational. The groundwater treatment remedy’s target goal is 5 ppb for three of the four indicator compounds. They are benzene, trichloroethylene, and 1,2 dichloroethane. The Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for these hazardous substances is 5 ppb. 52 Fed.Reg. 25,691, 25,694 (July 8, 1987). These levels are proposed and may not be enforceable. MCLs are national standards which have been promulgated by EPA pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act. 52 Fed.Reg. 25,691, 25,694 (July 8, 1987). Other hazardous substances present in the groundwater will also be treated to drinking water quality. They include compounds (e.g., acetone and methyl ethyl ketone) phenols, and metals (e.g., arsenic, nickel, iron, and manganese). Of the metals, arsenic will be treated to 50 ppb (an MCL), nickel will be treated to 150 ppm (an EPA Health Advisory, which is a guideline), and iron and manganese will be treated to 300 ppb and 50 ppb, respectively. 40 C.F.R. § 143.3; 40 C.F.R. § 141.11. It is the court’s ruling: the three indicator compounds, benzene, trichloroethylene, and 1,2 dichloroethane shall be remediated to 5 ppb. GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION AT OTTATI & GOSS SITE 1987 sampling shows that the groundwater under the Ottati & Goss site is still contaminated with levels of VOCs above EPA’s target goals. 1987 sampling shows the following at the Ottati & Goss site: Trichloroethylene (TCE) is present in the groundwater under the Ottati & Goss site at levels as high as 1,410 ppb, 1,2,dichloroethane at levels as high as 610 ppb, benzene at levels at least as high as 11 ppb, tetrachloroethylene at levels as high as 90 ppb and PCB at levels above 5 ppb. EPA’s target goal of 5 ppb must be met for the four indicator compounds: benzene, trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,2,dichloroe-thane and tetrachloroethylene (PCE). WETLANDS CONTAMINATION 1987 sampling rounds show that the groundwater under the marsh or wetlands remains contaminated with levels of VOCs above EPA’s target goals. TCE is present in the groundwater under the wetlands above 5 ppb and in another area at 60 ppb, 1,2 dichloroethylene above 5 ppb and as high as 29 ppb, benzene above 5 ppb and as high as 58 ppb, PCE at levels above 5 ppb and in other areas as high as 447 ppb. Nickel is present in the wetlands groundwater at levels as high as 380 ppb; arsenic as high as 148 ppb. There is contamination of the peat in the wetlands by the groundwater. PUMP AND TREAT METHOD The pump and treat system proposed assumes a pumping rate of 100 gallons per minute, 60 minutes every hour, 24 hours every day, 365 days every year. Any factor which reduces the pumping rate reduces the anticipated efficacy of the pump and treat alternative in removing TVPPs from the groundwater. A pump and treat system reduces the overall mass quickly until a time elapses where the overall groundwater concentrations are the same throughout the area of evaluation. Upon installation greater effects should be seen during the early period of installation. EPA under Section 121(b) has to select a remedy which significantly and permanently reduces the mobility and the toxicity of hazardous substances to the maximum extent practicable. It has determined that pumping and treating is the manner of achieving this goal. 42 U.S.C. § 9621(b). The public has expressed an intense interest in EPA’s selection of a remedy. The local citizens group, WASTE, has great concerns about the groundwater and its potential use for a drinking water source. Groundwater contamination will not clean itself up in the near term through natural attentuation. There would be significant long-term uncertainties associated with natural attenuation. Pumping and treating will clean up the groundwater with more celerity. The goals of RCRA will be considered. PCBs are highly toxic, predisposed to bioaccumulate, the VOCs are toxic and motile. There is both a short and long term potential for adverse health effects from human exposure. There is the potential for future remedial action costs if the alternative remedial action were to fail. That is if the court assumed from the evidence that natural attentuation would just as efficiently alleviate the groundwater problem. 42 U.S.C. § 9621(b). The remedial action shall according to 42 U.S.C. § 9621(c) be reviewed no less often than each 5 years after the initiation of such remedial action to insure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. A problem with the pump and treat system which concerns the court is its installation in the marsh area. The marsh area is east of Route 125 and groundwater flows from the site under Route 125 then into the marsh. The court is in agreement with former Administrator Ruckelshaus’ policy statement with regard to the protection of the nation’s wetlands. “Wetlands represent an ecosystem of unique and major importance to the citizens of this Nation and, as a result, they require extraordinary protection.” 38 Fed.Reg. 10834 (May 2, 1973). In the court’s opinion installing and operating a groundwater pump and treat system in the wetlands or marsh would have an impact on the marsh. The construction of a road is not a feasible alternative. There would be an impact on animal life, vegetation, but more importantly on the submerged peat in the marsh which has the ability to attenuate contaminants. With some reluctance the court rules as follows: Installation of the wells presents two feasible alternatives. If the wells are installed in the winter time when the ground is frozen, skid mounted bombardier equipment should be used. At any other time tlje decking system should be used. The Ottati & Goss plume does, in its travels, deposit contaminants into and under the GLCC site. The defendants found liable for contaminating Ottati & Goss which includes EPA are liable in damages for EPA’s response costs related to the GLCC problems with groundwater. This includes any remediations necessary to clean up the groundwater at the GLCC site. There was a mixing of the crushing pit plume and the plume from the caustic pit sawdust pile area which increased toxicity. Mixing of groundwater from the two sites began approximately 900 feet west of Route 125 and substantially mixed 400 feet easterly of the 900 feet. GLCC and IMC are also jointly and severally liable with the aforesaid defendants and the EPA. Regarding the groundwater on site, IMC did not attempt to clean up the groundwater. Sampling of groundwater in February, 1987 shows that groundwater under the GLCC site remains contaminated with levels which are above EPA’s target goals. EPA’s target goals are 5 ppb for each of four indicator hazardous substances: trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,2 dicloroethane, benzene and tetrachloroethylene (PCE). All indicator compounds concentrations in the groundwater at the GLCC site exceed 5 ppb. To summarize, the defendants are ordered to perform EPA’s selected groundwater remedy. It is not arbitrary and capricious. Target goals of EPA shall be met. DEMOLITION OF THE GLCC BUILDING There is a cinder block building on the GLCC site which the court has viewed. There is no question that the building or sections of it are contaminated. It has to be demolished. A cost estimate ranging between $57,000 and $74,800 plus 25% has been submitted to the court. The court finds that the costs of demolition of the building is $82,375. This cost is assessed against the GLCC and IMC defendants. KINGSTON FIRE DEPARTMENT COSTS The Kingston Fire Department provided emergency services such as a water curtain, neutralization water, ambulance and fire prevention services. This was to aid EPA in February, 1982 in reducing vapor emissions at the Ottati & Goss site during the drum removal operations. EPA spent $1,694.80 according to the terms of a contract that it had with the Kingston Fire Department. These costs are reimbursable. MASON & HANGER-SILAS MASON CO. INC. COSTS Mason & Hanger transported, maintained and operated a mobile laboratory at the Ottati & Goss site during the drum removal. They performed analyses of substances from the drums. Additionally, they conducted background screening for air monitoring. EPA spent $17,601.83 under and Emergency Environmental Response Unit Contract for these services with Mason & Hanger. These costs are reimbursable. I.T. CORPORATION COSTS I.T. Corporation operated a mobile laboratory at the Ottati & Goss site from October, 1981 through March, 1982 during the drum removal period. EPA paid I.T. $16,-334.20 for its labor, materials and expenses which are reimbursable. EPA PAYROLL COSTS DURING OTTATI & GOSS DRUM REMOVAL Reimbursable are EPA payroll expenses of $22,971.39. This is for EPA personnel who worked at the Ottati & Goss site during the drum removal operations. This was during the period from June, 1981 until April, 1982. Ottati & Goss, Louis Ottati, Richard French and Bernard Senter were given the opportunity to remove contaminated materials from the Ottati & Goss site by August 5, 1979. None of these defendants removed any contaminated materials from the site prior to the EPA drum removal operation. The generators were not given an opportunity by EPA to undertake the drum removal. This issue is somewhat moot in view of the settlement albeit that it was post trial between the plaintiffs and the generators. FENCING The GLCC site and the IMC marsh shall be fenced. It will be at IMC’s expense and shall be a six foot high chain link fence. See exhibit IM-D-182. If the plaintiffs at their voluntary option deem it feasible, the Ottati & Goss site shall be fenced at their expense. With respect to the easement with Hampton Power & Electric Company, a gate opening can be made and a key given to the power company. OTHER RESPONSE COSTS NUS Corporation Costs NUS performed work for the EPA at the Ottati & Goss/GLCC site under the Field Investigation Team (FIT) contract in 1983 and 1984. NUS was paid $35,212.00 by EPA. Of this amount EPA seeks to charge $12,851.00 solely to the GLCC defendants and $22,361.00 against all defendants. $1,682.00 was spent by NUS to produce documents for the use of the defendants in this litigation. The costs relate to the Ottati & Goss site and the GLCC site and cannot be divided. $8,093.00 was charged for Phase 1 testimony. This was with regard to testimony by former Ecology & Environment, Inc. employees for investigative work at both sites. After subtracting the costs relating to the September 9, 1983 incident, the balance shall be divided equally. $281.00 spent by NUS for disposable protective clothing, providing of air monitoring and arranging for the December 6, 1983 view by the court is chargeable to all defendants. NUS spent $2,141.00 to oversee work performed by Roy F. Weston on the GLCC 5.88 acres in 1984. $8,973.00 was also spent for NUS to oversee IMC excavation work done at the GLCC site in 1984. $850.00 was spent by NUS in preparation for a cost recovery report for this litigation. Many of the NUS employees who had worked on both sites under the Field Investigation Team contract had previously been employed by E & E under a similar contract with EPA. Difficult as it is, this court rules on the allocation of costs as far as possible. The total sum of $35,212.00 is broken down as follows. Costs reasonably allocated against GLCC and Ottati & Goss defendants amount to $22,361.00. Dividing that figure by two results in the sum of $11,180.50 being charged against IMC. $12,851.00 is charged solely against the GLCC defendants, for a total sum against the GLCC defendants of $24,031.50. With regard to the $24,031.50 figure, IMC shall be credited with the costs relating to the September 9, 1983 incident as heretofore stated. TECHLAW, INC. Techlaw became involved in the Ottati & Goss cleanup sometime in January, 1983. Its involvement with the sites ended sometime in January, 1984. The duties of Techlaw pertaining to the cleanup were twofold. It was charged with on-site organization of case files and preparation of evidence profile samples. Techlaw’s total cost for work performed was $23,278.10. Techlaw representatives expressed opinions that, at this point in time, it would be nearly impossible to allocate the work which was performed on the Ottati & Goss and the IMC sites. Although IMC does not specifically dispute the response cost attributable to Tech-law individually, IMC does refute the allocation of all response costs which the government is attempting to levy upon IMC, in which there is no substantiated allotment either as a result of complexity or the government's failure to ensure such allotment. There is testimony from Duba, the Tech-law representative which indicates that, had Techlaw been informed of the separatión of the Ottati & Goss site from the IMC site, and that both were to be dealt with separately in allotting work charges, such a billable breakdown would have been provided. (Tr. day, 4, p. 41-42). The actual figures presented by the government concerning Techlaw, are substantiated. The costs are divided equally, $11,639.05 for each site. GCA TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, INC. COSTS EPA spent $233,682.00 for work performed by GCA Technology Division, Inc. (or subcontractors to GZA) under the Technical Enforcement Support Contract from 1983 until 1985. $65,904.00 according to the EPA is chargeable only to the Ottati & Goss defendants. $10,273.00 pertained to the case against Geochem for depositing metals. The court has ruled in favor of Geochem and this sum cannot be charged by EPA against any defendant. $107,472.00 was spent to develop two computer data bases for use by government trial attorneys and experts. The first data base was with reference to the Ottati & Goss site. GCA billed EPA $120.00 in order to get Roy F. Weston to prepare its cost recovery data for which it charged GCA $3.00. GCA charged for 38 hours to contact two witnesses to testify in Phase II of the trial. EPA was billed in the approximate sum of $1,600.00. Both witnesses had testified in Phase I. The bills of Doctors Meyer and Gosselin are reduced from $12,168.00 to $10,568.00. Recovery here is sought by EPA only against Ottati & Goss defendants. The court finds that one half of the effort concerned the first data base and one half concerned the second data base. With regard to the second data base, it would be difficult to distinguish between sites for the time spent for design, programming, testing and supervising work relating to a particular well. The sums of $1,708.00 spent for GCA to obtain the services of an expert hydrogeologist for Phase I of the trial is disallowed. The sum of $337.00 spent for GCA to obtain the services of an expert toxicologist for Phase I of the trial is disallowed. Their work assignments were subsequently can-celled. $2,625.00 paid to Greg Morley for testimony in Phase I and other GZA personnel to assist in trial preparation is chargeable against all defendants. $27,142.00 paid to Dr. John Guswa and Geotrans to aid EPA’s attorneys in preparation for the testimony of defendants’ experts in Phase I of the trial is chargeable against all defendants. $62,708.00 was spent when Dr. John Guswa was with Roy F. Weston, Inc. He testified as an expert in Phase I of the trial for the plaintiffs and to aid in preparation for the testimony of defendants’ experts. This was testimony pertaining to hydro-geology and contaminant in groundwater and is chargeable against all defendants. $8,966.00 was spent for GCA to oversee the IMC operation at the GLCC site. This was from July, 1984 until May, 1985. The sum of $160.00 spent for Ecology & Environment, Inc. to provide cost recovery documentation for work it had performed at the Ottati & Goss/GLCC site is chargeable to all defendants. Allocation of GCA costs are required. In summary, the total GCA costs chargeable to the Ottati & Goss defendants is $137,-489.50. The total GCA costs chargeable to the GLCC defendants is $82,151.50. ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC. COSTS Arthur D. Little Company was employed by the government to assist in preparation for trial on a variety of issues relating to the Ottati & Goss site and the GLCC site. The employment of A.D. Little consisted primarily of the expertise of Doctors John Guswa and Joan Berkowicz, who collectively authored a report for use in trial preparation by the government. Both individuals provided deposition testimony, while Dr. Guswa additionally testified during Phase I of the litigation. The work performed by these individuals as employees of A.D. Little concerned groundwater contamination at both the Ottati & Goss site and the GLCC site. The total charge submitted by A.D. Little for performance of these services amounted to $8,117.67. No effort was made to allocate the cost amongst the sites, however, since the subject of the work performed involved groundwater (its condition and flow patterns) on the Ottati & Goss site, the IMC site, and on the surrounding areas, an attempt to allocate the amount of work performed on the various sites would not be reasonable. The government suggests an equal division of the A.D. Little costs, since the work involved all the parties and concerned groundwater contamination. The court agrees with this allocation. The total A.D. Little charge shall be divided equally with $4,058.84 attributable to the GLCC site and $4,058.84 attributable to Ottati & Goss. IT ANALYTIC SERVICES COSTS EPA spent $35,284.88 for expert testimony of employees of IT Analytic Services during Phase I of the trial. Chemical analyses were made of groundwater samples taken in May, 1980 from the Ottati & Goss and GLCC properties. They seek to have this sum of money chargeable against all defendants. IMC had agreed to obviate this expense by stipulating to this evidence. Originally, the government took the position that all costs related solely to the Ottati & Goss site. The generator defendants refused to stipulate and the witnesses had traveled to Concord prepared to testify. The court rules that it would be unjust to penalize IMC under these circumstances. The $35,-284.88 is chargeable against the Ottati & Goss defendants, not the GLCC defendants. ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. The government claims EPA spent $264,-075.52 for work performed by Ecology & Environment, Inc. (hereinafter E & E). This figure is computed by multiplying the total LOE hours 5,991, by an average labor cost of $40.60 per hour. This work was performed at the Ottati & Goss/GLCC site under the Field Investigation Team Contract. The government claims that, of that total, $13,993.11 is chargeable only to Ottati & Goss defendants and $9,992.58 is chargeable only to GLCC. The remaining $240,129.83, the government contends, is chargeable to both sets of defendants. The government claims the breakdown for E & E costs is as follows: a. $5,157.40 was spent for subcontractor Western Geophysical Corp., to conduct subservice investigation through the use of seismic refraction data. This sum is chargeable to both sets of defendants since the work concerned the site as a whole. b. $1,490.00 was spent for subcontractor Parker Survey Associates, to perform a boundary survey and develop a base map of the site. This sum is chargeable to both sets of defendants since the survey concerned the entire site involving GLCC’s 5.88 acres and Ottati & Goss’s 1 acre. c. $800.00 was spent for subcontractor Detection Services Group to perform a ground penetration radar survey. This sum is chargeable to both sets of defendants since the work concerned both properties. d. $13,270.10 was spent for subcontractor Clarence Welti Assoc., to install 16 monitoring wells at the site. The government contends that since 12 of the 16 wells relate exclusively to GLCC and 4 of the 16 relate exclusively to Ottati & Goss, $9,952.58 is chargeable to the GLCC defendants. e. $10,675.58 was spent for E & E to perform a magnetometer scan to search for buried metals to the west northwest of the Ottati & Goss property. However, this sum is chargeable only to the Ottati & Goss defendants since the work related solely to the Ottati & Goss site. f. $187,018.37 was spent for E & E to implement a groundwater investigation and monitoring system. This sum is chargeable to both sets of defendants since the study included both properties. g. $9,781.30 was spent for E & E to collect water and sediment samples in the marsh, Country Pond and residences surrounding the pond. This sum is chargeable to both sets of defendants. h. $35,883.38 was spent for E & E to draft a Remedial Action Master Plan. This was a preliminary assessment which identified the additional work needed to undertake the RI/FS. This sum is chargeable to both sets of defendants since the plan addressed the remedial action for the entire site. The government further contends that, if allocation of all costs is required, of the $240,129.83 E & E costs chargeable to both sets of defendants $190,049.95 is chargeable to the GLCC defendants. GLCC, however, contends that E & E spent approximately 25% of their time performing miscellaneous non-site specific tasks. These miscellaneous tasks are attributed to training, equipment maintenance and reviewing technical literature. GLCC claims that this time factor was not allocated to any particular site and may have related to equipment not even used at the site and to reviewing literature unrelated to the site. Taking into account the 1.376 multiplier factor — which increased the LOE hours from 4,354 to 5,991 — defendants contend 37.5% of E & E’s total charges excluding subcontractors’ costs represent miscellaneous costs. Thus, miscellaneous costs equal $91,257.90 ($243,354 X .375). GLCC further contends that the added-on miscellaneous charge for non-site specific tasks represents time in which E & E was not engaged in TDD’s. However, E & E charges the same loaded rate of $40.62 for equipment maintenance as they do for actual field work. Finally, GLCC contends that the fully-loaded hourly rate for E & E work in 1981 and 1982 was $35.00 per hour. GLCC claims it was adjusted upward to $40.62 in 1984. During testimony, it was revealed that in 1981 when E & E was actually doing the work at the site, its cost analysis indicated that the appropriate rate was approximately $35. per direct labor hour. See Tr. 8, p. 101. After reanalyzing its total billings to the EPA two years later, E & E arrived at a different hourly rate of $40.62. E & E claims that the $35.00 rate didn’t represent all costs associated with the program. The court makes the following findings of fact with regard to the E & E costs chargeable to GLCC: Subcontractors’ Costs Chargeable to GLCC It is undisputed that the total E & E subcontractor costs are $20,717.50. According to the Welti Well distribution, $9,952.58 is directly attributable to GLCC— this figure represents 12 of the 16 Welti Wells. As for the remaining $7,447.40 subcontractor costs, the court adopts a 50/50 ratio allocation distribution and finds that $3,723.70 is attributable to GLCC. Therefore, total subcontractor costs chargeable to GLCC equals $13,676.28. E & E Labor Costs Chargeable to GLCC In assessing the direct labor costs attributed to both sets of defendants, the court opines that a $35/hour rate accurately reflects the fully-loaded hourly rate chargeable by E & E for work performed in 1981 and 1982. The record as a whole contains insubstantial evidence as to why the hourly rate was raised to $40.62 in 1984. In applying the 1.376 multiplier factor, E & E expended a total of 5,991 labor of effort hours. The charge attributable to E & E direct labor, therefore, is $209,685.00 ($35/hour x 5991 hours). However, $9,198.35 (262.81 hours X $35/hour, see Tr. Day 6, p. 156) was spent for E & E to perform a magnetometer scan which was directly attributable to Ottati & Goss. Therefore, $200,486.65 must be allocated between both sets of defendants according to the court’s 50/50 ratio. In applying the 50/50 ratio, $100,243.32 is directly attributable to GLCC. The court agrees with defendant, GLCC that 37.5% of E & E’s total charges, excluding subcontractors’ costs, represent miscellaneous costs which this court refuses to hold chargeable to GLCC. Therefore, $62,-652.08 is the appropriate allocation of . direct E & E labor costs chargeable to GLCC. TOTAL E & E COSTS CHARGEABLE to GLCC In applying the above numerated totals, the court concludes that the total E & E costs chargeable to GLCC is $76,328.36. This figure is arrived at by adding the $13,676.28 subcontractor costs attributed to GLCC with the $62,652.08 E & E direct labor costs attributed to GLCC. Total E & E Costs Chargeable to Ottati & Goss Defendants Reference is made to pages 33 and 34 of the March 17, 1988 opinion and the following is incorporated. Total E & E subcontractor costs chargeable to the Ottati & Goss defendants equals $3,723.70. $9,198.35 represents magnometer scan costs and is directly attributable to the Ottati & Goss defendants. Finally, E & E direct labor costs of $62,652.08 are assessed against the Ottati & Goss defendants. Thus, $75,574.13 represents total E & E costs chargeable to the Ottati & Goss defendants. VIAR AND COMPANY COSTS EPA spent $75,538.13 for work performed by Viar & Company and National Contract Laboratory Analytical Laboratories under the Sample Management Office Contract from 1981 until 1984. Costs of $9,270.14 are not charged to any defendant because there is insufficient data to conclusively attribute it to the Ottati & Goss/GLCC site. The plaintiffs seek to charge the Ottati & Goss defendants $11,501.10, the GLCC defendants $25,785.78 and $28,981.11 to all other defendants. Costs are based on sample “traffic reports” and chain of custody reports indicating the well locations where samples were taken. Of the total cost of the Viar contract to EPA of $75,538.13, $67,984.39 was analytical work and $7,553.73 was sample management costs. Metals analyses were conducted by Versar and Rocky Mountain Analytical Laboratories. The total cost of metals analysis is $9,059.99 which is not chargeable against anyone. In summary, $9,270.14 is disallowed for insufficient data and $9,059.99 is also disallowed because it pertains to metals. This totals $18,330.13 reducing the $75,538.13 figure to $57,208.00. The GLCC defendants are charged for the costs of laboratory analysis and associated Viar administrative work for samples taken from wells located at the GLCC property ($9,446.45), the marsh ($11,907.14) and surface water from Country Pond ($4,432.08). This amounts to $25,785.78. All defendants are charged for the costs of administrative work for background well samples, quality control samples, and blanks because such costs relate equally to the entire site, and not to any particular site location. This amounts to $19,921.12; the metals analysis charge of $9,059.99 is deducted from $28,981.11. $11,501.10 is chargeable against Ottati & Goss defendants. There is a shortfall of $309.95. Peabody Clean Industries EPA paid $1,076,862.00 to Peabody Clean Industries, Inc. for removal of drums on the Ottati & Goss site; EPA also reimbursed the U.S. Coast Guard for another $484,000.00 paid to Peabody Clean Industries. Evidence of these costs was presented at Phase II of this trial. See Tr. Day 2, pp. 9-11 & 17-18. $1,560,862.00, therefore is assessed against the Ottati & Goss defendants. BIONETICS Bionetics participated in the Ottati & Goss cleanup, on behalf of the government, by analyzing and processing photographs of the cleanup sites between November, 1983 and November, 1984. A Bionetics representative provided testimony in Phase I, regarding work done on the Ottati & Goss site and on the GLCC caustic lagoon. Bionetics incurred a total cost of $10,-509.99 for the services provided. The parties stipulated to the total cost, and further stipulated that the total cost would be allocated proportionately between Ottati & Goss and GLCC based upon the amount of time spent by Bionetics on each site. The allocation was determined by ascertaining the amount of time spent on the site. The stipulated allocation of costs assessed is $6,770.83 to Ottati & Goss and $3,738.17 to GLCC. (Tr. day 7, pp. 50-52). IMC acknowledges the stipulation to the allocation of Bionetics’ costs in their Request No. 610. They agree with the figures, but note only that the costs incurred were for photographic analysis. Therefore, $3,738.17 is charged to IMC for costs incurred with regard to work performed by Bionetics. PRC ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, INC. EPA employed the services of PRC, Inc. under a Technical Enforcement Contract. PRC in turn, incurred costs as a result of its employment of several subcontractors. These various expenditures may be best addressed through individual analysis of costs allocated to each subcontractor. The subcontractors under PRC employ included Roy Weston, Inc., Life Systems, Inc., Goldberg-Zoino & Associates, Inc., Geo-Trans, Inc., Cambridge Analytical Associates, and Arthur D. Little, Inc. The utilization of Roy Weston, Inc., primarily involved the services of Dr. John Guswa who served as an expert witness on behalf of the government during Phase I. Dr. Guswa was employed by a number of subcontractors throughout the litigation. Although his work remained consistent for the purpose of this case, his employers varied at particular intervals during the case. Dr. Guswa’s employment with Roy Weston, Inc. began in December, 1984 and ended in May, 1986. The total expenditure to Roy Weston, Inc. for services provided by Dr. Guswa amounted to $28,178.49. The EPA proposes to split this charge between both the Ottati & Goss defendants and the GLCC defendants, since Dr. Guswa’s work concerned groundwater contamination at both sites. The court agrees with this assessment and holds GLCC defendants accountable for $14,089.24 for expenses incurred by PRC’s employ of Roy Weston, Inc. PRC’s employ of Life Systems, Inc. was for the purposes of identifying and listing five (5) experts to testify in the fields of toxicology, quantitative risk assessment, and environmental transport. The government attributes a total of 122 hours expended in performance of this task, at a total cost of $7,522.65. IMC disputed the reasonableness of this cost, since the government had already retained at least four (4) individuals who collectively possessed vast amounts of knowledge in the areas requested of Life Systems, Inc. The work performed by Life Systems was somewhat excessive in light of the existing witnesses retained by EPA. Therefore, fifty percent (50%) is disallowed. $3,761.33 is chargeable to Ottati & Goss and $3,761.33 to GLCC defendants. GZA was employed by PRC to provide assistance in preparation of the Phase II litigation which included expert testimony. The government asserts that expenditures of $187,101.01 are directly attributable to work performed by GZA as a subcontractor for PRC. Such assertion is supported by the post-trial affidavit of Robert Van Os-ten. Since the work performed by GZA involved both the Ottati & Goss site and the GLCC site, and since no allocation of work to the individual sites was performed, the government suggests an equal division of the GZA costs between the defendants. Therefore, GLCC is chargeable with these costs for GZA in the amount of $93,550.50 and $93,550.50 chargeable to Ottati & Goss. GeoTrans, Inc. was employed by PRC. The work performed by GeoTrans included trial preparation by none other than the very capable Dr. John Guswa. Once again Dr. Guswa’s work concerned past, present and future conditions of the groundwater at the Ottati & Goss and GLCC sites. The government claims that $158,025.09 was paid to GeoTrans in return for the services of Dr. Guswa during the period from September, 1986 through April, 1987. The testimony of Dr. Guswa, however, indicated that his contractual employ with GeoTrans terminated in February, 1987 and that subsequent to this termination, he was employed under a contract with the Justice Department. The work that Dr. Guswa performed related to groundwater and the costs are to be divided equally or $79,-012.54 apiece for the Ottati & Goss and GLCC defendants. Another subcontractor retained by PRC for the purpose of trial preparation was Cambridge Analytical Associates (Cambridge). Cambridge procured several experts to testify as to chemical analyses performed upon soil samples taken from both the Ottati & Goss site and the GLCC site. No allocation was made concerning the amount of work performed on each site. The government purports to have spent $21,513.83 for work performed by Cambridge Analytical Associates. However, the evidence reveals a total expenditure of $20,861.91. $10,430.95 is assessed against the Ottati & Goss defendants and $10,430.95 against the GLCC defendants. Another subcontractor employed by PRC in preparation of Phase II litigation was Arthur D. Little, Inc. (Little). Little provided experts to testify on matters of risk assessment and groundwater analysis. The government asserts a total expenditure of $28,704.25 for services provided by Little, and again suggests an equal division of this cost among the defendants. IMC’s greatest objection to these expenditures concerns the manner of contracting and subcontracting by EPA. According to IMC, EPA doubled their expenses by hiring “prime contractors” who would hire “subcontractors” to perform work which the prime contractor could directly have performed. In accomplishing a particular task, prime contractor fees would be paid in addition to subcontractor fees, unnecessarily increasing the cost. Little’s total bill of $28,704.25 shall not be reduced. Pursuant to the court’s permission, the United States submitted the post-trial affidavit of Robert Van Osten of PRC who discussed the costs relative to PRC and its subcontractors. See Tr. Day 69, p. 17. The affidavit, as well as an attached letter to EPA and work assignment summary, demonstrates that the amount paid to Arthur D. Little, Inc. represents 92% of the total dollars spent for experts to testify on matters of risk assessment and groundwater analysis. Therefore, $14,352.12 is assessed against the Ottati & Goss defendants and $14,352.12 is against the GLCC defendants. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR COSTS The EPA claims to have paid $2,373.79 to the Department of Interior to conduct preliminary natural resource surveys at the Ottati & Goss and GLCC sites. Unlike many of the alleged costs, the government has allocated the cost between time spent and work performed on the individual sites. Of the total expense attributed to the Department of Interior, 80% or $1,899.03 is allocated to the GLCC site. This figure is derived from the total allocation of efforts expended as a part of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, of which the natural resource surveys are included. The court accepts this allocation attributing $1,899.03 to work performed on the GLCC site paid to the Department of Interior. $474.76 is thus allocated to the Ottati & Goss defendants. EPA COSTS EPA claims it incurred costs of $630,-412.62 for payroll, travel and indirect costs in this case. Of this sum, $22,971.39 is chargeable to Ottati & Goss for drum removal costs from June, 1981 to April 1982; $26,400.84 is chargeable to Louis Ottati, Wellington Goss, Ottati & Goss, Bernard Senter, Senter Transportation Co., Concord Realty Trust, Richard French, French Processing, Inc., and GLCC. $1,955.00 is chargeable to the GLCC defendants and $579,085.39 is sought to be chargeable to both sets of defendants. EPA claims: a. $261,648.54 was spent on salaries for EPA personnel in Region I and in Headquarters. The evidence is that payroll and salaries were $213,219.60. b. $31,842.08 was spent for travel by EPA personnel and relates to the entire site as a whole. c. $336,922.00 are indirect costs which include expenses for rent, utilities, supplies, clerical staff and other overhead expenses. These indirect costs necessary to operate the Superfund program cannot be attributed directly to the 0 & G/GLCC sites, and are therefore disallowed. The total of salaries, travel and indirect costs is $245,061.68; $26,400.84 in non-removal costs were incurred prior to the amended and supplemental complaint filed in January, 1983 and is chargeable to Louis Ottati, Wellington Goss, Ottati & Goss, Bernard Senter, Senter Transportation Co., Concord Realty Trust, Richard French, Inc., French Processing Inc., and Great Lakes Container Corporation. This reduces the amount to $218,660.84. EPA Region I payroll is $1,308.00 too high and the further reduction amounts to the sum of $217,352.84. This figure should therefore be divided 50% to Ottati & Goss defendants and 50% to the GLCC defendants, or $108,676.42 for each site. Therefore, $108,676.42 is chargeable to the Ottati & Goss defendants and taking into account $1,955.00, the previously allocated sum of GLCC costs, $110,-631.42 is chargeable to the GLCC defendants. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT COSTS— GOLDBERG-ZOINO & ASSOCIATES, INC. AND STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE In March, 1983, EPA and the State of New Hampshire entered into a Cooperative Agreement under which the State was the lead agency to oversee the development of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility study at the Ottati & Goss/GLCC site and EPA reimbursed the State for the costs associated with the RI/FS, laboratory services, on-scene coordination, equipment, administrative costs, and other costs for the development of the RI/FS. The Cooperative Agreement was amended several times to reflect additional work to be undertaken by GZA and the State in the completion of the RI/FS. EPA gave a grant award to the State. The State of New Hampshire,