2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
11-20-2007 

# EI DuP ont de N e mours v

. U SA
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2096

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" EI DuP ont de N e mour s v

. U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 158. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/158H on. Paul R
. M i chel , U ni ted S tat es C i r cui tJ udge forthe * Feder al C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. P RE CE DE NT I AL UNI TE D ST ATE S COURT OF APP EAL S F OR THE T HI RD C IR C U IT
N o. 04- 2096

E
. I
. DUP ONT DE NE M OUR S AND C OM P ANY; C O N O C O , IN C .; S P O R T IN G G O O D S P R O P E R T IE S , IN C ., A p p e llan ts v. UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ; UN I TED STATES DEPAR TM ENT O F COM M ERCE; UN I TED STATES DEPAR TM ENT O F DEFENSE; UNI T E D S T AT E S DE P AR T M E NT OF T HE AR M Y; UNI T E D S T AT E S DE P AR T M E NT OF E NE RG Y; UNI TE D ST ATE S DEP ARTM ENT OF T HE I NTE RI OR; UNI T E D S T AT E S DE P AR T M E NT OF T HE NAVY

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D
. C
. N o. 97- cv- 00497) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. M art i ni

A r gued A pr i l 17, 2006 B efore: S L O V ITE R , A M B R O , and M IC H E L , C i rcui tJudg es. * O pi ni on Fi l ed A ugus t29, 2006 O n R emand fr om the Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es

J une 18, 20072 ( Fi l ed: N ovember20, 2007 )

_______ W i l l i am H
. H y att , J r . ( A r gued) K irk p a trick & L o c k h a rt P re sto n G a tes E lli s N ew ark, N J 07102 J ohn M cG ahr en Pat t on B oggs N ew ark, N J 07102 A tto rn e y s f

o r A p p e llan ts J ohn T
. St ahr E l l en J
. D ur kee ( A r gued) U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce E nvi r onm ent& N atur al R es our ces D i vi s i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20026 A t t orney s forA ppel l ees M icha el W
. S tei n b erg M o r g a n , Le wi s & Boc k i u s LLP W as hi ngt on, D C 20004 A tto rn e yf

o r A m icu s-A p p e llan ts Super fund Set t l ement s Pr oj ectand A m e ric a n C h e m istryC o u n c il

_____ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. Th i s ma t t e ri s b e f

o r e u s o n th e o r d e ro f

th e S u p r e me C our tof the U ni t ed St at es dat ed J une 18, 2007, w hi ch gr ant ed the pet i t i on fora w r i tof ce r t i or ar i fi l ed byD uPont , vaca t ed the3 ju d g m e n t o f

th is c o u rt, an d re m a n d e d f o r f u rth e r c o n sid e ra tio n in lig h t o f its o p in io n in U n ite d S ta te s v . A tla n tic R e s e a rc h C o rp ., 5 5 1 U .S . , 1 2 7 S . C t. 2 3 3 1 (2 0 0 7 ). I n o u r e a rl ie r o p in io n , a m aj or i tyof thi s courthel d thatD uPontcoul d notpur s ue an act i on un der C E R C L A t o recov er fr om the U nit ed S t at es a por t i on of i t s cl eanup c os t s . T he di s s entw oul d have he l d that D uPontcoul d m ai nt ai n an ac t i on forcos tr ecove ryunder§ 107 o f C E R C L A . In lig h t o f

th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s o rd e r, w e re tu rn to the i s s ue pr es ent ed. I. I nt roduct i on A p p e lla n ts E .I. D u P o n t d e N e m o u rs & C o ., C onocoPhi l l i ps C o. , and Spor t i ng G oods Pr opert i es , I nc. (c o llec tiv e ly“ D u P o n t” o r “ a p p e llan ts” ) o w n a n d o p e ra te ind u str ial fa cil it ies th rou g h o u t th e U n it ed S tat es th at are c o n tam in a ted w ith h a z a rd o u s w a ste . D u P o n t ad m its th a t it con t am i nated tho se si t es, bu tal l eges t hat the U nit ed S t at es al so c o n tam in a ted p a rts o f

th e site s. A f

ter D u P o n t v o lu n tar ily cl eane d up a s i t e j oi nt l ypol l ut ed byboth D uPontand the governm ent , D uPontfi l ed thi s s ui tunderthe C om pr ehens i ve E nvi r onm ent al R es pons e, C om pens at i on, and Li abi l i tyA ct ( “C E R C L A ”) , 42 U
. S. C
. § 9601 ets eq. , s eeki ng an or der r equi r i ng the governm entt o r ei m bur s e i tfora s har e of the cl eanup c os t s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the mot i on of the U n it ed S tat es f

o r sum m aryjud g m en t. E
. I. D u P o n t de N em o u rs & C o. v. U ni t ed St at es , 297 F. Supp. 2d 740 ( D
. N
. J
. 2003)
. T he D i s tr i ctC our tther eaf

t erent er ed j udgm enton the pl eadi ngs for the U n it ed S tat es w ith resp ec t t o the re m ainin g sit es. E
. I. D u P o n t de N em o u rs & C o . , N o . 9 7 -49 7 , 2 0 0 4 U
. S
. D ist
. L E X IS 30498, at*2 ( D
. N
. J
. M ar . 1, 2004)
. T hi s courtaff i r m ed. In th e o p in io n a c c o m p a n y in g th e n o w -v a c a ted ju d g m e n t, w e hel d t hattw o of ourpr ece dent s – N ew C as t l e C ountyv. H al l i bur t on N U S C orp. , 111 F. 3d 1116 ( 3d C i r . 1997) , and M att er o f R ea d ing C o . , 1 1 5 F
. 3 d 1 1 1 1 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ) – pr ecl uded D uPont ’ s cl ai m s . See E. I
. D uPontde N emours & C o. v. U ni t ed St at es , 460 F. 3d 515, 518 ( 3d C i r . 2006)
. W e r ead our o p in io n in N e w C a stle C o u n tya s b a rrin g p o ten tiallyre sp o n sib leW e r efe r to the s ect i ons of C E R C L A r atherthan the 1 codi fi ed ver s i ons of thos e s ect i ons i n the U ni t ed St at es C ode, exce ptthatw e not e ea ch init ial r efe r ence t o a new s ect i on of the s t atut e. T her e has been s om e di s cus s i on i n the cas e l aw aboutthe

2 acc ur acyof the us e of the t erm “pot ent i al l y resp o ns i bl e party ” or
“ P R P ” to re f

e r to th o se p a rties th a t p o ten tiallyb e a r so m e liab ili ty for cont ami nat i ng a s i t e. See, e. g. , C ons ol
. E di s on C o. of N
. Y
. v. U G I U t i l s. , Inc. , 42 3 F
. 3d 90 , 97 n. 8 (2d C i r. 20 05 ) ( cri t i ci zi ng use 4 p a r t i e s f r o m p u r s u i n g a c o s tr e c o v e rya c t i o n u n d e rCE RC L A § 1 0 7 (a ), 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 7 (a ), th e re b ylim iti n g p o ten tially r es pons i bl e part i es t o an expr es s caus e of a ct i on forcontr i but i on u n d e r C E R C L A § 1 1 3 , 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 1 3
. Id . In o u r o p in io n in 1 R e a d in g , w h ich w a s d e c id e d a f e w w e e k s a f

ter N e w C a stle C ount y , w e hel d t hatthe s t atut oryr emedyi n § 113 w as the excl us i ve r emedyforpot ent i al l yr es pons i bl e part i es s eeki ng contr i but i on, ther ebyr epl aci ng anyj udi ci al l ycr eat ed i m pl i ed caus e of a ct i on forcontr i but i on under§ 107. I d. W e hel d that beca us e the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n C ooperI ndus tr i es , I nc. v. A vi al l Ser vi ces , I nc. , 543 U
. S. 157 ( 2004) , l i m i t ed us e of § 113 t o part i es thatcl eane d up cont ami nat ed s i t es pur s uantt o an or deradj udgi ng them l i abl e orw ho s ett l ed s uch an a ct i on, D u P o n t, w h ic h h a d c le a n e d u p v o lu n ta ri ly, h a d n o v ia b le c la im
. I d. Subse quent l y , the Supr eme C our tdeci ded U ni t ed St at es v. A t l ant i c R es ear ch C orp. , 551 U
. S. ___, 127 S. C t
. 2331 ( 2007) , hol di ng thata pr i vat e partym ayr ecove runder§ 107 vol unt ar i l yi ncurr ed cl eanup c os t s fr om anotherparty , i ncl udi ng the g o v ern m en t, w ith o u t anyestab li sh m en t of li ab il ityto a th ir d p a rty . It i s a p p a re n t th a t A tlan tic R e se a rc h C o rp . im p e ls u s to reconsi der our preceden t s. II.

St at ut ory F ram ew ork T he apport i onm entof cl eanup c os t s among t he ent i t i es gener al l yr efe r r ed t o as pot ent i al l yr es pons i bl e part i es ( “PR Ps” ) 2of t he t erm “PR P” as vague a nd i m pr eci s e bec aus e the t erm does n o t a p p e a r a n yw h e re in C E R C L A ). B e c a u se th e S u p re m e C o u rt in A tl an ti c R ese arc h C o rp. u ses th e term “P R P , ” w e u se th at t erm h ere a s w e ll. 5 i s setforth in the ap pli cable provi si on s of C E R C L A
. C on gress enac t ed C E R C L A i n 1980 t o addr es s the “s er i ous envi r onm ent al and health ri sks posed bypo l l uti on . ” U nit ed S t at es v. B est foo ds, 5 2 4 U .S . 5 1 , 5 5 (1 9 9 8 ). C E R C L A h a s tw o p ri n c ip a l p u rp o s e s . See M or t on I nt ’ l , I nc. v. A
. E
. St al eyM fg. C o. , 343 F. 3d 669, 676 ( 3d C i r . 2003)
. Fi r s t , C E R C L A i s a r emedi al s t atut e that “gr ant s the Pr es i dentbr oad pow ert o comm and governm ent agenc i es and pr i vat e part i es t o cl ean up ha zar dous w as t e s i t es . ” K e yT ro n ic C o rp . v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 1 1 U .S . 8 0 9 , 8 1 4 (1 9 9 4 ). S e c o n d , the sta tu te r e q u ire s “ e v e ry o n e w h o is p o ten tially re sp o n sib le f

o r h a z a rd o u s-w a ste c o n tam in a tio n . . . to c o n trib u te to th e c o s ts o f

c le a n u p .” B e s tf

o o d s , 5 2 4 U .S . a t 5 6 n .1 (em p h asis an d interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). Sever al s ect i ons of C E R C L A ar e r el evantt o our di s cus s i on. A . Sect i ons 106 and 107 C E R C L A § 106( a) pr ovi des thatthe U ni t ed St at es m ay actt o “s ecur e s uch r el i ef a s m aybe nec es s aryt o abat e” a “s ubs t ant i al endange r m entt o the publ i c hea l th orw el far e orthe envi r onm entbeca us e of a n actual orthr eat ened r el eas e of a h a z a rd o u s s u b s ta n c e f

ro m a f a c ility.” 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 6 (a ). C E R C L A § 107( a) ( 1)

- ( 4) defi nes “cove r ed per s ons , ” thati s , the cl as s of per s ons r es pons i bl e forthe cos t s i ncurr ed pur s uantt o § 10 6 o r other sect i on s, as fol l ow s: ( 1 ) th e o w n e ra n d o p e r a t o ro f a v e s s e l o ra f

a c i l i ty, ( 2) anyper s on w ho atthe t i m e of di s pos al of any h a z a rd o u s s u b sta n c e o w n e d o r o p e ra ted a n yf a c ili ty atw hi ch s uch haz ar dous s ubs t ance s w er e di s pos ed of, (3) anyperson w ho bycon tract , agreem ent, or ot herw i se6 a rra n g e d f

o r d isp o sa l o r tre a tm e n t, or a rra n g e d w ith a tra n sp o rte r f

o r tra n sp o rt f

o r d isp o sa l o r tre a tm e n t, of haz ar dous s ubs t ance s ow ned orpos s es s ed bys uch per s on, byanyotherpartyorent i ty , atanyfac i l i tyor i nci ner at i on ves s el ow ned oroper at ed byanother partyorent i tyand cont ai ni ng s uch haz ar dous s ubs t ance s , and ( 4) anyper s on w ho acc ept s oracc ept ed anyhaza r dous s ubs t ance s fortr ans portt o di s pos al ortr eatm ent fac i l i t i es , i nci ner at i on ves s el s ors i t es s el ect ed by su ch p erso n , fro m w h ich th ere is a release , o r a thr eat ened r el eas e w hi ch ca us es the i ncurr ence of re s p o n s e c o s ts , o f

a h a z a rd o u s s u b s ta n c e . . . . 4 2 U
. S
. C
. § 9 6 0 7 (a). Sect i on 107( a) ( 4) ( A )

- ( D ) pr ovi des thatthos e cove r ed per s ons “s hal l be l i abl e for ”: ( A ) al l cos t s of r emoval orr emedi al act i on i ncurr ed by the U ni t ed St at es G overnm entora St at e oran I ndi an tr i be noti ncons i s t entw i th the nat i onal cont i ngency pl an; ( B ) anyot hernece s s arycos t s of r es pons e i ncurr ed by anyot herper s on cons i s t entw i th the nat i onal cont i ngencypl an; ( C ) damages fori nj uryt o, des truct i on of, orl os s of natur al r es our ces , i ncl udi ng the r eas onabl e cos t s of as s es s i ng s uch i nj ury , des truct i on, orl os s r es ul t i ng fr om s uch a r el eas e; and (D ) th e c o sts o f

a n yh e a lth a ss e ss m e n t o r h e a lth e f f e c ts s tudycarr i ed outunders ect i on 9604( i ) of thi s t i t l e. 4 2 U
. S
. C
. § 9 6 0 7 (a)(4)(A )-( D ). B . Sect i on 113 In 1 9 8 6 , C o n g re ss e n a c ted th e S u p e rf u n d A m e n d m e n ts and R eauthor i zat i on A ct( “SA R A ”) , Pub. L
. N o. 99- 499, 100 St at
. 1613, w hi ch adde d § 113 t o C E R C L A
. Sect i on 113( f) ( 1)7 p ro v id e s: A nyper s on m ays eek c ontr i but i on fr om anyotherper s on w ho i s l i abl e orpot ent i al l yl i abl e unders ect i on 9607( a) [C E R C L A § 107( a) ] of thi s t i t l e, dur i ng orfol l ow i ng any c iv il ac tio n u n d e r se c tio n 9 6 0 6 [ C E R C L A § 1 0 6 ] o f th is tit le o r u n d e r se c tio n 9 6 0 7 (a ) [ C E R C L A § 1 0 7 (a )] o f th is t i t l e. . . . I n r es ol vi ng contr i but i on cl ai m s , the courtm ay al l ocat e r es pons e cos t s among l i abl e part i es us i ng s uch e q u ita b le f

a c to rs a s th e c o u rt d e te rm in e s a re a p p ro p ri a te
. N othi ng i n t hi s s ubs ect i on s hal l di m i ni s h the r i ghtof any per s on t o br i ng an ac t i on forcontr i but i on i n the abs ence of a c i vi l act i on unders ect i on 9606 [C E R C L A § 106] of thi s t i t l e ors ect i on 9607 [C E R C L A § 107] of thi s t i t l e. 4 2 U
. S
. C
. § 9 6 1 3 (f)(1). T her e ar e thr ee s ubs ect i ons of § 113 thatar e of pa r t i cul ar re lev a n c e . T h e yp ro v id e th a t: (1 ) a P R P th a t “h a s re so lv e d its l i abi l i tyt o t he U ni t ed St at es ora St at e i n an admi ni s tr at i ve or j udi ci al l yappr oved s ett l ement ” w i l l notbe l i abl e forcl ai m s for contr i but i on fr om ot herPR Ps w i th r es pectt o “mat t er s addr es s ed i n t he s ett l ement , ” i d. § 113( f) ( 2) ; ( 2) a s ett l i ng PR P m ays eek contr i but i on fr om non- s ett l i ng PR Ps, i d. § 113( f) ( 3) ( B ) ; and ( 3) the st atute of l i m i t at i on for an acti on un der § 10 7(a) i s si x y ears , w her eas the s t atut e of l i m i t at i on foran ac t i on under§ 113( f) ( 1) is th ree y ea rs, id. § 1 1 3 (g). C . Sect i on 120 C E R C L A § 120( a) ( 1) cont ai ns a w ai verof the U ni t ed St at es ’ s over ei gn i m m uni ty . 42 U
. S. C
. § 9620( a) ( 1)
. Sect i on 120( a) ( 1) pr ovi des that“[e ] ach de part m ent , agenc y , and i ns trum ent al i tyof the U ni t ed St at es . . . s hal l be s ubj ectt o, and c o mp l ywi th , th i s c h a p t e ri n th e s a me ma n n e ra n d t o th e s a me e x ten t . . . as a n yn o n g o v e rn m e n tal e n tity , inc lu d in g liab ili ty un de rs e c t i on 96 07 [CER CL A § 1 07 ] of thi s t i t l e . ” Se e FM C C o rp. v. U
. S
. D ep ’to f C o m m erc e, 29 F
. 3 d 8 3 3 , 8 4 0 (3d C ir
. 1994) ( en banc ) ( “[W ] hen the governm entengage s i n act i vi t i es thatw oul d m ake a pr i vat e partyl i abl e [unde rC E R C L A ] i f theT h e f a c i l i t i e s i n c l u d e D u P o n ts i t e s i n N e w a r k , N e w J e r s e y; 3 C arney s Po i nt, N ew Jer sey ; P a rlin , N ew Jer sey ; P om pton L akes, N ew J er s ey ; G i bbs t ow n, N ew J er s ey ; B uffa l o, N ew Y or k; N i agar a, N ew Y or k, N i agar a Fal l s , N ew Y or k; E as tC hi cago, I ndi ana; L oui s vi l l e, K entucky ; N ash vi l l e, T ennes s ee; Spruance , V i r gi ni a; a n d B e l l e , W e s tV i r g i n i a ; a C o n o c o P h i l l i p s s i t e i n P o n c a C i ty, O k l aho m a; and a S po rt i ng G oo ds P ropert i es si t e i n B ri dg epo rt, C o n n e c ticu t. 8 pr i vat e partyengage d i n thos e types of ac t i vi t i es , then the g o v ern m en t i s also li ab le. ” (e m p h asis o m itted)). III . F act s and P roce dural H i s t ory A s w e not ed i n ourear l i eropi ni on, D uPontow ns fi ft een f a c ili ties in v a rio u s s tate s, e a c h o f w h ich is c o n tam in a ted w ith haza r dous w as t e. D uPont , 460 F. 3d at525. T he U ni t ed St at es 3 al s o ow ned ea ch s i t e dur i ng W or l d W arI , W or l d W arI I , and/ or th e K o re a n W a r. T h e U n ited S tate s p o llu ted th e site s d u rin g its per i od of ow ner s hi p. In January19 97 , D uP on tcom m enced this act i on against the governm enti n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey , s eeki ng r ecove ryfors om e of the cos tof i t s vol unt arycl eanup e ffort s . T he compl ai ntal l eged c aus es of act i on forcos tr ecove r yunder§ 107( a) of C E R C L A , as w el l as forcontr i but i on under§ 113( f) ( 1) of C E R C L A
. D uPont vol unt ar i l ydi s m i s s ed i t s cl ai m s under§ 107( a) and for “r ecoupment ” of c os t s w i thoutpr ej udi ce. I n or dert o curt ai l the expens es of di s covery , the D i s tr i ctC our tdes i gnat ed the L oui s vi l l e, K entuckyfac i l i tyas a “t es tcas e” t o det erm i ne w hetherD uPontcoul d m ai nt ai n i t s act i on agai ns tthe governm ent
. Fol l ow i ng compl et i on of di s covery , the governm entm oved fors um m aryj udgm ent , ar gui ng thatD uPont h a d n o c a u se o f

a c tio n f o r c o n trib u tio n u n d e r § 1 1 3 b e c a u se it w as a PR P t hathad vol unt ar i l yundert aken c l eanup c os t s w i thout h a v i n g b e e n s u e d o rw i th o u ts e t t l i n g i t s l i a b i l i ty.9 O n D ece m ber30, 2003, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the governm ent ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entw i th r es pectt o the L oui s vi l l e, K entuckys i t e. D uPont , 297 F. Supp. 2d at743. T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatbeca us e D uPonthad notbeen s ued u n d e r § 1 0 6 o r § 1 0 7 a n d h a d n o t o th e rw ise se ttl e d its liab ili ty w i th r es pectt o t he Loui s vi l l e fa ci l i ty , i tcoul d notpur s ue an a c tio n f o r c o n tr ib u tio n u n d e r § 1 1 3 . S e e id . a t 7 4 7 -4 8 . A contr i but i on act i on under§ 113 r equi r ed, acc or di ng t o the D i s tr i ctC our t , a pr i ororongoi ng l aw s ui t
. I d. at749. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad corr ect l yfor es een the s ubs equentdeci s i on of th e S u p re m e C o u rt in th a t re sp e c t. O n M ar ch 1, 2004, the D i s tr i ctC our ti s s ued a rul i ng and o rd e r g ra n tin g th e g o v e rn m e n t ju d g m e n t o n th e p lea d in g s w ith r es pectt o t he otherfour t een s i t es . T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatthe pl eadi ngs di d nots ugges tanybas i s t o concl ude thatthe four t een others i t es w oul d y i el d a di ffe r entr es ul tthan the L oui s vi l l e s i t e. D uPontappea l ed. W e s t ay ed the appe al pendi ng the S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in C o o p e r In d u strie s, In c . v . A v iall Ser vi ces , I nc. , 543 U
. S. 157 ( 2004) , w hi ch hel d thata partyw ho h ad n eith er b ee n h eld re sp o n sible fo ll o w ing an ac ti o n u n d er § 1 0 6 o r § 1 0 7 n o r s e ttle d c o u ld n o t p u rs u e a c la im u n d e r § 1 1 3
. A ft erthe C ooperI ndus tr i es opi ni on w as fi l ed, D uPontar gued that( 1) w e s houl d rul e thatas a mat t erof l aw , i n l i ghtof C ooper I n d u s tr i e s , DuPo n th a s a r i g h to f c o n tr i b u t i o n u n d e rCERCLA thati s i ndepende ntof the r emedypr ovi ded by§ 113, even i n the abs ence of a c i vi l act i on under§ 106 or§ 107; ( 2) a PR P, s uch a s D u P o n t, ha s a c a u se o f a c tio n im p lied u n d e r C E R C L A to r e c o v e ra n e q u i t a b l e s h a r e o f r e s p o n s e c o s t s f

r o m a n o th e rP RP pur s uantt o t he t extof § 107( a) ( 4) ( B ) orfede r al comm on l aw e v e n in th e a b se n c e o f

a p rio r o r p e n d in g § 1 0 6 o r § 1 0 7 c iv il act i on ora § 113( f) ( 3) ( B ) s ett l ement ; ( 3) the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed bydecl i ni ng t o i m pl ya r i ghtof contr i but i on bas ed on anyother pr ovi s i on of C E R C L A and thatthe dec i s i on i n C ooperI ndus tr i es demol i s hed the as s um pt i ons under l y i ng ouranal y s i s i n R eadi ng; and ( 4) the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n gr ant i ng j udgm enton the p l e a d i n g s b yd i s mi s s i n g Du P o n t ’ s § 1 1 3 ( f ) c o n tr i b u t i o n c l a i ms w i th respectt o all fi ft een si t es.T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n o v e r th is 4 cas e pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1331. W e have j ur i s di ct i on on appea l under28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. 10 O n A ugus t29, 2006, a di vi ded pane l of thi s courti s s ued a n o p in io n , p ri n c ip a lly a f f ir m in g th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. D uPont , 460 F. 3d at528. D uPontfi l ed a pe t i t i on forw r i tof ce rt iorari t o the S u p rem e C o u rt
. O n Ju n e 1 8 , 2 0 0 7 , the C o u rt gr ant ed the w r i t
. See E. I
. D uPontde N emours & C o. v. U ni t ed St at es , 127 S. C t
. 2971 ( J une 18, 2007)
. T he C our tvaca t ed the j udgm entand r emanded the ca s e t o thi s courtforfur ther cons i der at i on i n l i ghtof A t l ant i c R es ear ch C orp. I d. W e as ked the part i es t o s ubm i ts uppl ement al br i efi ng on the ef fec tof A t l ant i c R es ear ch C orp. on the i s s ues i n thi s cas e. I V. Ri g h t s o f

a P RP u n d e r CE RCL A a n d S ARA T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entand j udgm enton the pl eadi ngs i s s ubj ectt o pl enaryr evi ew . See S ikir ica v
. N ati o n w ide In s. C o . , 4 1 6 F
. 3 d 2 1 4 , 2 1 9 -20 (3d C ir
. 2005)
. O n r evi ew , w e cons true al l fac t s and i nfer ence s i n the

4 l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng party , and “[ j ] udgm ent w il l no t be g ran ted u n less the m o v an t cl ea rl yestab li sh es th ere are no m at eri al i ssues of fact, and he is enti t l ed to j ud gm ent as a m att erof l aw . ” I d. at220. Q ues t i ons of s t atut oryi nt erpr et at i on ar e al s o s ubj ectt o pl enaryr evi ew . L aff ertyv. St
. R i el , 495 F. 3d 7 2 , 7 6 n . 5 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ). A l though ourpr ece dent s , N ew C as t l e C ountyand R eadi ng, couns el ed thatD uPontcoul d notm ai nt ai n a ca us e of a c tio n a g a in st th e U n ited S tate s f o r c o st re c o v e ryo f

v o lu n tar ily i n c u r r e d c l e a n u p e x p e n s e s u n d e rCER CLA § 1 0 7 , th e S u p r e me C o u rt’s d e c isio n in A tlan tic R e se a rc h C o rp . ca u se s u s to r eeva l uat e ourpr ece dent s . N otw i ths t andi ng thi s court ’ s s tr i ct adh erence t o o ur precedents , w e hav e m ade clearthat tho se pr ece dent s m aybe r eeva l uat ed w hen ther e has been i nt erveni ng author i ty . See G eor ge H arm s C ons tr . C o. v. C hao, 371 F. 3d 1 5 6 , 1 6 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (“ W e re c o g n ize th a t w e m a yre e v a lu a te11 a pr ece denti n l i ghtof i nt erveni ng author i tyeven w i thouten banc c ons i der at i on. ”) ; R ei ch v. D
. M
. Sabi a C o. , 90 F. 3d 854, 8 5 8 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) ( “ A l th o u g h a p a n e l o f th i s c o u r ti s b o u n d b y, and l acks author i tyt o overrul e, a publ i s hed dec i s i on of a pr i or panel
. . . , a pane l m ayr eeva l uat e a pr ece denti n l i ghtof interve n ing au tho ri ty [.]”). E v e n th o u g h w e m u st b e p a rticu lar lyc a u tio u s in re v is itin g c a s e s in v o lv in g q u e s tio n s o f s ta tu to ry in te rp re ta tio n , a r eeva l uat i on of pr ece denti s appr opr i at e i n thi s cas e. A s the S u p rem e C o u rth as e x p lai n ed , in “c ase s w h ere statu tory pr ece dent s have be en overrul ed, the pr i m aryr eas on forthe C our t ’ s s hi fti n pos i t i on has been the i nt erveni ng devel opm entof the l aw , thr ough ei therthe gr ow th of j udi ci al doctr i ne orfur ther act i on t aken byC ongr es s . W her e s uch cha nges have r emoved or w eake ned the conc eptual underpi nni ngs fr om the pr i ordeci s i on, o r w h e re th e late r la w h a s re n d e re d th e d e c isio n irre c o n c ilab le w i th compet i ng l egal doctr i nes orpol i ci es , the C our thas not hes i t at ed t o overrul e an e ar l i erdeci s i on. ” Patt er s on v. M cLean C red itU n ion , 4 9 1 U
. S
. 1 6 4 , 1 7 3 (19 8 9 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). T he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n A t l ant i c R es ear ch C orp. i s s uch i nt erveni ng author i ty . I ti m pel s us t o r eeva l uat e our h o ld in g s in R e a d in g a n d N e w C a stle C o u n ty beca us e A t l ant i c R es ear ch C orp. w eake ns the conc eptual un derpi nn i ng s of t ho se deci si on s. Sect i on 107 s t at es thatvar i ous part i es , i ncl udi ng the o w n e r o r o p e ra to r o f

a f a c ility, m a yb e re s p o n s ib le f o r “ a n y. . . nece s s arycos t s of r es pons e i ncurr ed byanyotherper s on co n sist en t w ith the n ati o n al co n ti n g en cyp lan,” § 1 0 7 (a)(4)(B ), a n d p ro v id e s a c a u se o f a c tio n to p a rties th a t in c u r c lea n u p c o sts buthave notthemsel ves been s ued under§ 106 or§ 107. For y e a rs a f ter th e 1 9 8 0 e n a c tm e n t o f C E R C L A , d istric t co u rts al m ostun anim ou sl yfou nd that § 107 con t ai ned an im pli ed cau se o f a c tio n f o r c o n trib u tio n . S e e , e.g ., U n ited S tate s v . N e w C a stle C ount y , 642 F. Supp. 1258, 1265- 69 ( D
. D el
. 1986) ( hol di ng that contr i but i on r i ghtar i s es underfede r al comm on l aw ) ; C ol or ado v. A SA R C O , I nc. , 608 F. Supp. 1484, 1489- 91 ( D
. C ol o. 1985) ( s ame) ; W ehnerv. Synt ex A gr i bus i nes s , I nc. , 616 F. Supp. 27,O uri m pos i t i on of t h e “i nnocent ” s t andar d on part i es 5 se e k in g to b rin g su it u n d e r § 1 0 7 is n o t b a se d o n th e sta tu to rytex t. A r guabl y , the “i nnocent ” s t andar d i m pos ed b ythi s and other ci r cui t s vi ol at es fundament al rul es of s t atut ory co ns truct i on by im po si ng a requi rem ent no t evident on the st atute’ s face. T h is c o u rt-c re a ted sta n d a rd ig n o re s th e f a c t th a t § 1 0 7 (a )(4 )(B ) p lain ly al l ow s a pr i vat e party pl ai nt i ff t o be “a nyotherper s on” bes i des the governm ent , s t at e, and I ndi an t r i bes and does notexpr es s l yexcl ude part i es that m ay be r es pons i bl e fora s pi l l
. See A t l ant i c R es ear ch C orp. , 551 U
. S. ___, 127 S. C t
. at2336. 12 31 ( E
. D
. M o. 1985) ( hol di ng thatcontr i but i on r i ghti s i m pl i ed fr om l anguage of § 107( e) ( 2) )
. H ow ever , w i th the ena ctm entof § 1 1 3 , the c o u rts tu rn e d to th a t se c tio n a n d a w a yf ro m § 1 0 7 to pr ovi de the ca us e of a ct i on. As we n o t e d b r i e f

l ya b o v e , we t o o v e e r e d a wa yf r o m § 107 i n ourdeci s i on i n N ew C as t l e C ounty , w her e w e s t at ed that § 113 pr ovi ded a “ pot ent i al l yr es pons i bl e per s on[] w i th the appr opr i at e vehi cl e” t o “r ecoup thatpor t i on of i t s expendi tur es w hi ch exc eeds i t s fai rs har e of the over al l l i abi l i ty . ” 111 F. 3d at 1122. W e furtherhel d that“a s ect i on 107 act i on br oughtfor r ecove r yof cos t s m aybe br oughtonl ybyi nnocentpart i es that h av e u n d ertak en clea n -up s. ” Id
. at 11 2 0 (em p h asis in o ri g inal). 5 S im ilarly , in R e a d in g , w e h e ld th a t a p o ten tiallyre sp o n sib le p a rtym a yn o t se e k c o n trib u tio n u n d e r § 1 0 7 (a )(4 )(B ). In f a c t, w e s t at ed “§ 113( f) ( 1) s peci fi cal l yperm i t s an ac t i on for contr i but i on t o be br oughti n the abs ence of ci vi l act i on under s ect i on 107. ” 115 F. 3d at1120 ( i nt ernal punctuat i on and q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). T he tr end t ow ar d appl i cat i on of § 113 w as hal t ed bythe S u p rem e C o u rt ’s de cisi o n in C o o p er In d u str ies, w h ere the C o u rt he l d tha tthe pl a i n l a ng ua ge of § 1 13 ( f) ( 1) do e s no ta l l ow PR Ps to b rin g c o n trib u tio n a c tio n s u n les s a n d u n til a re late d c iv il act i on i s br oughtagai ns tthem underei ther§ 106 or§ 107. 543 U
. S. at166. T he C our tr es erved j udgm enton the ques t i on w h ethe r P R P s w h o are n o t subject t o an ac ti o n u n d er § 1 0 6 o r § 1 0 7 m ayinstead see k reli ef u n d er § 1 0 7 (a)(4)(B ).13 In R e a d in g a n d N e w C a stle C o u n ty , w e a ss u m e d th a t all pot ent i al l yr es pons i bl e part i es — thos e w hos e r es pons i bi l i tyhad b e e n a d ju d ica ted a n d th o se w h o v o lu n tar ilya d m itt e d th e ir r es pons i bi l i ty— w er e “pot ent i al l yr es pons i bl e part i es ” w ho c o u ld re c o u p lo s s e s b yb ri n g in g s u it p u rs u a n t to § 1 1 3 (f ). C ooperI ndus tr i es change d thatpr emi s e, how ever , byhol di ng th a t o n lya p a rtyw h o h a s in f a c t b e e n h e ld re sp o n sib le ( v ia adj udi cat i on ors ett l ementw i th the EP A ) m aybr i ng an ac t i on under§ 113( f) , w her eas a partyw ho conce des i ti s a PR P but w hos e r es pons i bi l i tyhas notbeen e s t abl i s hed maynot
. A ft erthe C ooperI ndus tr i es deci s i on, ther efor e, a PR P t hathad notbeen s ubj ectt o s ui tors ett l ed i t s l i abi l i tyhad no r ecour s e t o r ecove r c lea n u p c o sts u n d e r C E R C L A b e c a u se u n d e r o u r p re c e d e n ts it c o u ld n o t b rin g a § 1 0 7 c laim , an d u n d e r C o o p e r In d u strie s, it c o u l d n o tb r i n g a § 1 1 3 c l a i m. Fol l ow i ng the dec i s i on i n C ooperI ndus tr i es , the C our tof A ppeal s forthe Ei ghth C i r cui tcons i der ed the ef fec tof C ooper I ndus tr i es i n a ca s e pendi ng befor e i t
. I n A t l ant i c R es ear ch C o rp . v . U n ited S tate s, 4 5 9 F .3 d 8 2 7 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ), A tlan tic R es ear ch ( a PR P) had s oughtpart i al r ei m bur s ementunderboth § 107 and § 113 fr om the U ni t ed St at es forcos t s i ncurr ed i n a vol unt aryenvi r onm ent al cl eanup. W hi l e thatl i t i gat i on w as ongoi ng, the Supr eme C our tdeci ded C ooperI ndus tr i es , ther eby f o re c lo sin g A tlan tic R e se a rc h ’s c laim u n d e r § 1 1 3 b e c a u se it h a d n o tb e e n s u b

j e c tt o s u i to ro th e rw i s e s e t t l e d i t s l i a b i l i ty. T he di s tr i ctcourtbefor e w hi ch the l i t i gat i on w as pendi ng d ism issed the c o m p lai n t on the b asis o f th e E igh th C ir cu it ’s p rec ed en t i n D ico In c. v. A m o co O il C o . , 3 4 0 F
. 3 d 5 2 5 (8th C ir
. 2003) , hol di ng thata PR P coul d notbr i ng a cl ai m under§ 107 b e c a u se it w a s n o t an in n o c e n t p a rty . O n a p p e a l b yA tlan tic R es ear ch, the Ei ghth C i r cui tconcl uded thatC ooperI ndus tr i es “u n d erm ined D ico’s re aso n ing fo r pa rt ies i n A tl an ti c’s pos i t i on[, ] ” i
. e. , fora partyw ho had notbeen s ued orhad not o therw ise sett led its l iabili ty
. 4 5 9 F
. 3 d at 83 0 n . 4
. T h e c o u rt expl ai ned thati n a pos t - C ooperI ndus tr i es w or l d, PR Ps a r e not for ecl os ed fr om obt ai ni ng r el i ef unde r§ 107. I d. at834, 837 (co n clud ing that b arring A tl an ti c R ese arc h fro m a c o st r ec o v ery act i on under§ 107 w oul d be “c ontr aryt o C E R C L A ’ s purpos e”14 t o encour age vol unt arycl eanups and w oul d be an “ an abs ur d and unj us tout come”)
. See al s o C ons ol i dat ed Edi s on C o. of N ew Y or k v. U G I U t i l i t i es , I nc. , 423 F. 3d 90 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ( r eev alua ti n g it s p ri o r pre ce d en t fo ll o w ing C o o p er In d u str ies). O urpr ece denti n N ew C as t l e C ountyand R eadi ng w as si m i l ar t o the E i gh th C i rcui t ’s preceden ti n D i co b ecause w e al so as s um ed that§ 113 w as a vi abl e bas i s forobt ai ni ng r el i ef a nd thata § 107 ac t i on forcos tr ecove ryorcontr i but i on w as unavai l abl e. I ti s s i m i l ar l ycl earthatC ooperI ndus tr i es u n d e rm in e d o u r p re c e d e n t as w e ll. T h e S u p re m e C o u rt d e c isio n th e re a f ter in A tlan tic R e se a rc h C o rp ., w h ich a f f irm e d th e E ig h th C irc u it’s d e c isio n , is di s pos i t i ve of the i s s ue bef or e us . A t l ant i c R es ear ch, a PR P, had c o n tam in a ted th e so il an d g ro u n d w a tera t an a m m u n iti o n f a c ili ty w ith b u rn e d f

u e l, b u t th e U n ite d S ta te s h a d a ls o p o llu te d th e s ite
. See 127 S. C t
. at2335. A t l ant i c R es ear ch vol unt ar i l ycl eane d up the s it e, ev en tho u g h ith ad n o t bee n the s u b ject of a su itu n d er § 106 or§ 107. I d. I tthen s ued the U ni t ed St at es underboth §§ 107( a) and 113( f) t o r ecove ra s har e of i t s vol unt arycl eanup expens es . I d. T he C our t , i n a unani m ous opi ni on author ed by J us t i ce Thom as , hel d t hat , al though A t l ant i c R es ear ch coul d not s ue the U ni t ed St at es under§ 113( f) i n thatcas e bec aus e no § 10 6 o r § 107 act i on w as pend i ng or had b een b rough tagainst A tl an ti c R ese arc h , itco u ld b ri n g a c o st r ec o v eryclaim u n d er § 107( a)
. I d. at2335- 39. M or e s peci fi cal l y , i n A t l ant i c R es ear ch C orp. the Supr eme C our tconcl uded thatPR Ps mayappl yboth §§ 1 0 7 (a )( 4 )( B ) a n d 1 1 3 (f

)( 1 ) t o re c o v e r c le a n u p e x p e n s e s , butthe tw o s ect i ons “pr ovi de tw o ‘ cl ear l ydi s t i nct ’ r emedi es . ” Id . a t 2 3 3 7 (q u o tin g C o o p e r I n d u s ., 5 4 3 U .S . a t 1 6 3 n .3 ). S p ec ifi ca ll y , “‘C E R C L A p rov ide[ s] fo r a righ t t o co st r ec o v ery in c e rta in c irc u m sta n c e s, § 1 0 7 (a ), an d se p a ra te r ig h ts to contr i but i on i n otherci r cumst ance s , §§ 113( f) ( 1) , 113( f) ( 3) ( B )
. ’ ” Id . (q u o tin g C o o p e r In d u s., 5 4 3 U .S . at 1 6 3 ) (e m p h a sis in o ri g inal). S ec ti o n 1 1 3 (f) au tho ri ze s a P R P to se ek rec o v ery b e c a u se o f

a n in e q u itab le d istrib u tio n o f c o m m o n liab ili ty among l i abl e part i es “dur i ng orfol l ow i ng” a s ui tunder§ 106 or15 § 1 0 7 (a ). S e e id . at 2 3 3 8 . S e c tio n 1 0 7 (a ), b yc o n tra st, “ p e rm its re c o v e ryo f

c lea n u p c o sts b u t d o e s n o t cr e a te a rig h t to contr i but i on. ” I d. U nder§ 107( a) , a PR P m ay“r ecove ronl ythe cos t s i thas ‘ i ncurr ed’ i n cl eani ng up a s i t e. ” I d. ( quot i ng 42 U
. S. C
. § 9607( a) ( 4) ( B ) )
. T hus , i n s um , the C our ts t at ed: the r emedi es avai l abl e i n §§ 107( a) and 113( f) c o m p lem e n t ea c h o th e r b yp ro v id in g c a u se s o f a c tio n “ to p e rs o n s in d if

f e re n t p ro c e d u ra l c ir c u m s ta n c e s .” C ons ol i dat ed Edi s on, 423 F. 3d at99; s ee a l s o E
. I
. D uPont d e N e m o u rs , 4 6 0 F .3 d a t 5 4 8 (S lo v ite r, J ., d is s e n tin g ). Se c t i on 11 3( f) ( 1) a utho r i z e s a c on tr i bu t i on a c t i on t o PRPs w i th comm on l i abi l i tys t emm i ng fr om an ac t i on i ns t i tut ed un der § 10 6 o r § 107 (a)
. A nd § 1 07 (a) perm i t s cost re c o v e ry(a s d istin c t f

ro m c o n trib u tio n ) b ya p riv a te p a rty thathas i t s el f i ncurr ed cl eanup c os t s . H ence , a PR P t hat p ay s m o n eyto sa ti sfya se tt lem en t agre em en t or a c o u rt j udgm entm aypur s ue § 113( f) contr i but i on. B utby r e i mb u r s i n g r e s p o n s e c o s t s p a i d b yo th e rp a r t i e s , th e P RP h as n o t i n cu rred it s o w n co sts of resp o n se a n d there fo re cannotr ecove runder§ 107( a)
. A s a r es ul t , though e l i g i b l e t o s e e k c o n tr i b u t i o n u n d e r§ 1 1 3 ( f ) ( 1 ) , th e P RP cannots i m ul t aneous l ys eek t o r ecove rthe s ame expens es u n d er § 1 0 7 (a). I d. T he C our t ’ s concl us i on that“the pl ai n l anguage of s ubpar agr aph [§ 107( a) ( 4) ] ( B ) author i zes cos t - r ecove ryact i ons byanypr i vat e party , i ncl udi ng PR Ps, ” i d. at2336 ( ci t i ng K ey T ro n ic, 5 1 1 U .S . at 8 1 8 ), th e re b yo v e rru led o u r h o ld in g in D uPont , 460 F. 3d at518, that§ 113 pr ovi ded the s ol e ca us e of act i on t o PR Ps. Fol l ow i ng A t l ant i c R es ear ch C orp. , ther e i s no do ub tthat, con traryt o o ur precedents , a P R P m aybri ng a cause of ac t i on forcos tr ecove ryunder§ 107 and nee d notr el yupon § 113 as i t s excl us i ve r emedy
. See 127 S. C t
. at2339. P e rm itt in g p a rties w h o v o lu n tar ilyin c u r c lea n u p c o sts to br i ng s ui tunder§ 107 comport s w i th the funda m ent al purpos es of C E R C L A
. A s thi s courtnot ed i n H or s ehea d I ndus tr i es , I nc.16 v . P ara m o u n t C o m m u n icati o n s, Inc
. , 2 5 8 F
. 3 d 1 3 2 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ): T he purpos e of CE R C L A i s “t o as s ur e thatthe curr ent a n d f u tu re c o sts a ss o c iate d w ith h a z a rd o u s w a ste f a c ili ties , inc lu d in g p o st-c lo su re c o sts , w ill b e a d e q u a tely fi nance d and, t o the gr eat es text entpos s i bl e, borne bythe o w n e rs a n d o p e ra to rs o f s u c h f a c iliti e s .” I d
. a t1 3 5 ( q u o t i n g 4 2 U. S
. C. § 9 6 0 7 ( k ) ( 6 ) ( E ) ) ; s e e OHM R e m e d iatio n S e rv s. v . E v a n s C o o p e ra g e C o ., 1 1 6 F .3 d 1 5 7 4 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (n o tin g C E R C L A ’s b ro a d , rem e d ial p u rp o se to fac i l i t at e pr om ptcl eanup of haza r dous w as t e s i t es and t o s hi ft cos t s of envi r onm ent al r es pons e fr om t axpay er s t o part i es w ho b e n e f itt e d f ro m w a ste s th a t ca u se d h a rm ); se e a lso In re T u tu W at erW el l s C E R C L A L i t i g. , 326 F. 3d 201, 206 ( 3d C i r . 2003) (sta tin g th a t C E R C L A ’s p u rp o se is “ m a k in g th o se re sp o n sib le forpr obl ems ca us ed bythe di s pos al of che m i cal poi s ons bearthe cos t s and r es pons i bi l i tyforr emedy i ng the harm ful condi t i ons theycre ated ”) (cit ati o n an d q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). V o lun taryclea n u p s are v it al t o fu lfi ll ing C E R C L A ’s pu rpose. D uri ng deli berat i on s on the SA R A A m end m ents , C ongr es s emphasi zed the i m por t ance of vol unt aryact i on, s t at i ng that“[v] ol unt arycl eanups ar e es s ent i al t o a s ucce s s ful pr ogr am forcl ean up of

the N at i on’ s haza r dous s ubs t ance pol l ut i on pr obl em. ” H
. R
. R ep. N o. 99- 253, pt
. 5, at58 ( 1985) , as r epr i nt ed i n 1986 U
. S. C
. C
. A
. N
. 3124, 3181; s ee a l s o 131 C ong. R ec. 24725, 24730 ( 1985) ( s t at ementof Sen. D om eni ci ) ( “The goal of C E R C L A i s t o achi eve e ffe ct i ve and e xpedi t ed cl eanup o f a s m a n yu n c o n tr o lle d h a z a rd o u s w a s te f a c iliti e s a s p o s s ib le
. O ne i m por t antcomponentof the r eal i s t i c s tr at egym us tbe the encour agementof vol unt arycl eanup a ct i ons orfundi ng w i thout havi ng the Pr es i dentr el y i ng on the panopl yof admi ni s tr at i ve an d jud ici al t o o ls av ail ab le. ”). A l though s upervi s ed cl eanups ar e t o be enc our aged w herever possi ble, theyneed no tbe en cou raged at the ex pen se o f u n su p e rv ise d c lea n u p s. U n d e r § 1 0 7 (a )(4 )(B ), a p a rtyis liab le f o r c o sts in c u rre d in a c lea n u p (v o lu n tar yo r o th e rw ise ) o n lyT hi s court co ns i der ed D uPont ’ s cl ai m s under§ 107( a) 6 no tw i thst and in g its earl i er vol un t arydis m i ssal of those cl ai m s, appr oved w i thoutpr ej udi ce bythe D i s tr i ct C our t
. I tw oul d be p ru d e n t, i n li g h t o f

d e v e lo p m e n ts in th e c a se law , fo r D u P o n t to se e k D istric t C o u rt a p p ro v a l to a m e n d its c o m p lain t to sp e c if ica lly sta te a c a u se o f

a c tio n u n d e r § 1 0 7 (a ) o n c e a g a in . A tlan tic R es ear ch, i n the ca s e dec i ded bythe Supr eme C our t , had amended i t s compl ai ntfol l ow i ng the dec i s i on i n C ooperI ndus tr i es . See 127 S. C t
. at2335. D uPonthas r eques t ed that w e or derbr i efi ng on the D i s tr i ct 7 C o u rt’s d e f

in iti o n o f “ c o n trib u tio n ” a n d th a t w e re v isit th e v iab ili ty of ourdeci s i ons i n N ew C as t l e and Readi ng. O urw i thi n opi ni on ex p li cit ly co v ers the lat ter issu e. In a d d it ion , the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s opi nion in A t l ant i c R es ear ch makes cl earthe meani ng of “contr i but i on” and w e s ee no r eas on t o add t o i t s di s cus s i on. T he part i es ar e fr ee t o pr ocee d w i th thati s s ue i n the D i s tr i ctC our ton r emand. W e al s o l eave forthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s con side r at i on D uP on t ’s cl ai m s w i th respectt o the ot her fou rt een si t es. 17 i ns ofaras thos e cos t s ar e “c os t s of r es pons e i ncurr ed byany otherper s on cons i s t entw i th the nat i onal cont i ngencypl an. ” 42 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 7 (a )(4 )(B ). B yth e p lain tex t o f th e sta tu te, a p a rty thats eeks r ecove r yforcos t s i ncurr ed i n a cl eanup thatdoes not c o m p o rt w ith th e n a tio n a l c o n tin g e n c yp la n is w ith o u t r e c o u rs e . B e c a u se th e re h a s b e e n n o su g g e stio n th a t D u P o n t’s c lea n u p is i n thatpo si t i on , i thas st at ed a v i able cause of acti on for cost rec o v eryu n d er § 1 0 7 (a). 6 Forthe r eas ons s etfor th, w e w i l l r ever s e the dec i s i on of the D i s tr i ctC our tw i th r es pectt o anycl ai m m ade byD uPontfor cos t s i ncurr ed w hi l e undert aki ng vol unt arycl eanup e ffort s and r emand forfur therpr ocee di ngs i n acc or dance w i th thi s opi ni on. 7

_____________________