ELR Citation: ELR 21389
No(s). 94-5674 (AJL) (D.N.J. Apr 10, 1996)

The court holds that potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) may not bring a §107(a) cost recovery action. The court first holds that CERCLA limits PRPs to actions for contribution under §113. All courts of appeal that have considered the issue agree that a PRP cannot maintain a cost recovery suit under §107(a). The court rejects plaintiffs' argument that this allows only federal and state governments to sue for full cost recovery under §107(a). Private parties can sue under §107(a) in certain circumstances, but a response cost recovery action under §107(a) is available only to a plaintiff who does not bear CERCLA liability. The court rejects plaintiffs' argument that they are nonliable parties entitled to full cost recovery. The fact that the relevant administrative consent orders and PRP agreements do not contain admissions of liability is not dispositive. Their action to recover for their remediation obligation is a claim for contribution. The court also dismisses plaintiffs' declaratory relief claims for natural resource damages. Only the federal government or an authorized representative of a state has standing to bring an action for natural resource damages under §107(a)(4)(C), and plaintiffs do not allege that they have been appointed as authorizedrepresentatives of the state. A plaintiff who lacks standing to bring an action for natural resource damages recovery also lacks standing to bring an action for declaratory judgment regarding liability for future natural resource damages.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Nielsen V. Lewis
Skey, Dumont & Matejek
791 Alexander Rd., Princeton NJ 08543
(609) 520-3800

Counsel for Defendants
Paul H. Ladehoff
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 514-2000