Section 107 cost recovery is available to the government, a state, a tribe, or a private party who has itself paid for response costs consistent with the National Contingency Plan. The plaintiff must show a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance from a facility, that the defendant is a PRP, and that the plaintiff's costs were necessary and NCP-consistent — private plaintiffs face a stricter consistency standard than government plaintiffs.

Cost recovery is distinct from a contribution action under Section 113: a cost recovery plaintiff is recovering its own out-of-pocket cleanup expenses and can potentially recover joint and severally from any PRP, while a contribution plaintiff is a liable party itself seeking an equitable share back from co-liable parties. The two claims carry different limitations periods and different available liability theories, and a party's own status as a PRP can determine which route is open to it.

Because a cost recovery judgment can expose a defendant to the full cost of remediation up front, the decision to litigate liability versus negotiate an early settlement is highly sensitive to the strength of the plaintiff's NCP-consistency showing and the defendant's divisibility defense. A Juricratic simulation lets a party dial the probability of surviving summary judgment on NCP consistency and compare that scenario against negotiated cost-sharing outcomes, framed as an exploratory rehearsal rather than a forecast of any actual ruling.

Cost recovery actions are typically filed by EPA, a state agency, or a private party — often a current property owner or a prior responsible party who settled early — after remediation costs have already been incurred, with the litigation focused on PRP status, NCP consistency, and any available divisibility or contribution offset.