ELR Citation: ELR 20715
No(s). s. 83-3161 et al (D. Idaho May 7, 1986)

The court rules that the 60-day notice provision in §112 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is neither applicable nor a jurisdictional prerequisite to a CERCLA §107 cost recovery action. To support its conclusion that §112(a) applies only to claims against the Superfund under §111, the court first observes that the 60-day notice requirement follows §111, not §107. Although it notes that the §112(d) statute of limitations applies to all CERCLA provisions, and thus §112 is not wholly independent of §107, the court finds that the 60-day notice provision of §112(a) is limited by its language to actions against the Superfund under §111. The court reviews eight relevant federal district court cases and rejects those cases requiring 60-day notice as a jurisdictional prerequisite to a §107 action in favor of the narrow application of §112(a) to §111 claims only. The court is persuaded by the latter line of cases based on their reading of the language of §112(a), the legislative history, and its conclusion that Congress would not demand technical statutory compliance at the expense of environmental protection.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Patrick J. Kole
Department of Health and Welfare
450 W. State St., 5th Fl., Boise ID 83720
(208) 334-4006

T. Mark Thompson, Ass't Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Statehouse, Boise ID 83720
(208) 334-2400

Counsel for Defendant
R.B. Rock, Robert D. Luce
Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett & Blanton
First Security Bldg., P.O. Box 829, Boise ID 83701
(208) 345-2334