ELR Citation: ELR 21458
No(s). CIV A 94-0752 (E.D. Pa. Jun 20, 1995)

The court holds that a private potentially responsible party (PRP) seeking to recover costs it has incurred in cleaning up a site it owned may bring a cost recovery action against other private PRPs under §107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and is not limited to bringing a contribution action under CERCLA §113. The court follows those courts that have allowed private PRPs to bring such actions. The court notes that the text of §§107 and 113 suggest that §107 creates a right-of-action for PRPs. Section §107 does not indicate that the implied private right-of-action under §107 is limited to innocent private parties, and the text of §113(f) does not provide an exclusive remedy for potentially liable parties. Moreover, the statutes of limitations for cost recovery and contribution actions reinforce the court's conclusion. The court also notes that plaintiff does not appear to be using a §107(a) claim to avoid the statute of limitations for contribution actions, and that allowing the §107(a) claim comports with CERCLA's goal of encouraging parties to initiate cleanup operations promptly and voluntarily. Finally, the court holds that the Pennsylvania Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act provides a private right-of-action to recover response costs.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
James Kimmel
Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz
3000 Two Logan Sq.
18th and Arch Sts., Philadelphia PA 19103
(215) 981-4000

Counsel for Defendants
Paul Greco
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
2000 One Logan Sq., Philadelphia PA 19103
(215) 963-5000