## Facts

- Atlantic Research Corporation retrofitted rocket motors for the Department of Defense at a government-owned facility in Arkansas.
- Its operations generated wastewater and burnt fuel that contaminated soil and groundwater at the site.
- Atlantic Research voluntarily performed cleanup work and incurred response costs.
- Atlantic Research sought to recover a portion of those costs from the United States under CERCLA, invoking §§ 107(a) and 113(f).
- After a Supreme Court decision limited when § 113(f) contribution is available, Atlantic Research proceeded on a § 107(a) cost-recovery theory.
- The United States argued that a “potentially responsible party” (PRP) cannot sue under § 107(a) and must proceed, if at all, under § 113(f).

## Issues

1. Whether a PRP may bring a CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(B) action to recover response costs from another PRP when the plaintiff does not qualify for a § 113(f) contribution action.
2. How CERCLA §§ 107(a) and 113(f) operate together when a PRP incurs cleanup costs voluntarily rather than paying to satisfy a judgment or settlement.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Eighth Circuit in a unanimous opinion by Justice Thomas.
- The Court held that CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(B) authorizes cost-recovery actions by private parties, including PRPs.
- The Court rejected the argument that PRPs are categorically barred from suing under § 107(a)(4)(B) and limited to § 113(f).
- The Court distinguished between (i) costs a party directly incurs in cleanup and (ii) payments made to reimburse others under a settlement or judgment, assigning different statutory remedies to each.

## Legal Principles

- CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(B) permits “any other person,” including a PRP, to recover necessary response costs it incurred consistent with the national contingency plan.
- CERCLA § 113(f) provides a contribution remedy in specified circumstances, including when a party has been sued under § 106 or § 107(a) or has resolved liability through a qualifying settlement.
- A PRP that voluntarily initiates cleanup and directly incurs response costs may seek cost recovery under § 107(a)(4)(B).
- A party that pays money to satisfy a settlement or court judgment typically seeks contribution under § 113(f) because such payments reimburse costs incurred by others rather than constituting the payer’s own response costs.
- Recognizing a § 107(a)(4)(B) cause of action for PRPs does not make § 113(f) superfluous; the provisions address different payment and procedural postures.

## Conclusion

CERCLA allows a PRP that voluntarily cleans up contamination and incurs its own response costs to sue other PRPs for cost recovery under § 107(a)(4)(B), while § 113(f) remains the avenue for contribution when the plaintiff’s payments reimburse others pursuant to litigation or settlement.


United States v. Atl. Rsch. Corp., 551 U.S. 128 (2007)