CERCLA § 107 Cost Recovery Complaint

COMPLAINT FOR COST RECOVERY UNDER CERCLA § 107

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] brings this action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), to recover response costs incurred in connection with the cleanup of hazardous substances released at the site commonly known as [SITE NAME], located at [SITE ADDRESS], [County], [State] (the "Site").

Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME] is a Potentially Responsible Party ("PRP") under CERCLA § 9607(a) [specify category: current owner/operator, prior owner/operator, arranger, or transporter]. Plaintiff has incurred substantial response costs for removal and remedial actions at the Site consistent with the National Contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40 CFR Part 300, and now seeks recovery of those costs from Defendant.

II. JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and CERCLA § 9613(b), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(b). The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of this Court.

III. VENUE

Venue is proper in this district under CERCLA § 9613(b), which provides that an action for recovery of response costs may be brought in the United States district court for the district in which the facility is located. The Site is located in [County], [State], within this judicial district.

IV. PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] is [a State/the United States/a private party/municipality], and is authorized to undertake response actions at contaminated sites under federal and state law. Plaintiff has incurred substantial costs in responding to the release of hazardous substances at the Site and is seeking recovery of those costs consistent with CERCLA § 9607(a)(4)(B) and/or other applicable statutory bases.

B. Defendant

Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME] is [a corporation/individual/partnership/governmental entity] [registered/incorporated/located] in [State]. Defendant is a Potentially Responsible Party ("PRP") under CERCLA § 9607(a) by virtue of [its current ownership and operation of the Site / its prior ownership and operation of the Site at the time of hazardous substance disposal / its role as an arranger for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances / its role as a transporter selecting the disposal site].

V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. The Site

1. The Site is a [describe site type: former industrial facility, waste disposal area, manufacturing plant, etc.] located at [address]. The Site currently [describe current use: is abandoned / is in residential use / is in commercial use / is undergoing remediation].

2. Historically, the Site was used for [describe historical operations: manufacturing, waste disposal, metal processing, drum storage, etc.] from approximately [year] to [year]. During this period, hazardous substances were [disposed of / manufactured / processed / stored / released] on, in, and at the Site.

3. The Site is approximately [X acres/square feet], consisting of [describe buildings, structures, area classification, etc.].

B. Hazardous Substances

4. The Site contains the following CERCLA-listed hazardous substances, as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14):

☐ Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): [trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), benzene, toluene, etc.]
☐ Heavy Metals: [lead, chromium, cadmium, mercury, etc.]
☐ Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs): [polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phenolic compounds, etc.]
☐ Pesticides: [specify]
☐ Petroleum Products: [specify]
☐ Other: [specify other CERCLA-listed substances]

5. Soil sampling conducted at the Site on [date(s)] detected the following hazardous substances at the concentrations exceeding applicable remedial action levels:

[List with analytical results, sampling locations, and comparison to regulatory standards]

6. Groundwater sampling conducted at the Site on [date(s)] detected the following hazardous substances:

[List with analytical results and comparison to groundwater standards]

7. [If applicable] Surface water and/or sediment sampling detected [specify substances and concentrations].

C. Release and Threatened Release

8. Hazardous substances have been released from the Site into the environment, including into soil and groundwater, and there is a threatened release of additional hazardous substances due to the continued presence of contamination and active migration of contaminants.

9. The release and threatened release of hazardous substances at the Site has caused and continues to cause environmental contamination requiring response actions to prevent, minimize, or mitigate impacts to human health, safety, and the environment.

D. Source of Release and Defendant's Responsibility

1. Current Owner/Operator [42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(1)]

10. Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME] is the current owner and/or operator of the Site. As such, Defendant is strictly liable under CERCLA § 9607(a)(1) for all response costs incurred in connection with the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at the Site.

11. Defendant acquired ownership of the Site in [month/year] and has exercised operational control over the Site since that date. Defendant was aware, or should have been aware, of the presence of hazardous substances at the Site through [inspections / due diligence / industry knowledge / prior environmental reports / prior owner disclosures].

2. Prior Owner/Operator at Time of Disposal [42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(2)]

12. Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME] owned and/or operated the Site at the time when hazardous substances were disposed of or released at the Site. Specifically, Defendant owned/operated the Site from approximately [date] to [date], during which period [operations were conducted / wastes were disposed / releases occurred].

13. As the owner/operator at the time of disposal, Defendant is strictly liable under CERCLA § 9607(a)(2) for all response costs and damages resulting from the release or threatened release of hazardous substances.

3. Arranger for Disposal [42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3)]

14. Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME] arranged for the disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at the Site. Specifically, Defendant [contracted with / hired / commissioned] [transporter/disposal company] to transport, dispose of, and/or treat hazardous substances at the Site.

15. By contract, agreement, or otherwise, Defendant arranged with [specify transporter/disposal operator] for the transport and disposal of hazardous substances at the Site. These arrangements resulted in the release or threatened release of hazardous substances causing the incurrence of substantial response costs.

16. Defendant is strictly liable under CERCLA § 9607(a)(3) as an arranger for disposal or treatment.

4. Transporter Selecting Disposal Site [42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)]

17. Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME] accepted hazardous substances for transport and selected or designated the disposal site or facility at which the hazardous substances were disposed. This selection resulted in a release or threatened release of hazardous substances.

18. Defendant is strictly liable under CERCLA § 9607(a)(4) as a transporter who selected the disposal facility.

E. Defendant's Knowledge and Activities

19. Defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the presence of hazardous substances at the Site. Defendant engaged in operational practices and disposal methods at the Site that resulted in the release of hazardous substances into soil, groundwater, and surface water.

20. Defendant failed to implement adequate practices to prevent the release or migration of hazardous substances and failed to notify appropriate authorities of the releases in a timely manner.

VI. RESPONSE ACTIONS TAKEN

A. Overview of Response Activities

21. In response to the release of hazardous substances at the Site, Plaintiff [or: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency / [State] Department of Environmental Quality / [REMEDIAL PARTY]] has undertaken removal and remedial actions consistent with the National Contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40 CFR Part 300.

22. The response actions taken at the Site are consistent with 40 CFR § 300.160, which requires that the lead agency complete and maintain documentation during all phases of response to support cost recovery. Plaintiff has documented the source and circumstances of the release, the response actions taken, and the costs incurred.

B. Pre-Remedial Activities

23. During [year(s)], a Preliminary Assessment ("PA") was conducted at the Site to evaluate environmental conditions and determine whether further investigation was warranted.

24. A Site Investigation ("SI") was conducted during [year(s)] to assess the nature, extent, and mobility of hazardous substance contamination. The SI included [soil sampling / groundwater sampling / surface water sampling / indoor air sampling / geophysical surveys].

25. Based on the PA/SI results, the Site was determined to pose a threat to human health and the environment and was prioritized for remedial action.

C. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

26. A Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") was undertaken to further characterize site conditions and evaluate remedial alternatives. The RI/FS was conducted during [year(s)] and included:

☐ Detailed soil sampling and analysis at [number] locations
☐ Groundwater monitoring well installation and sampling from [number] wells
☐ Exposure pathway analysis
☐ Risk assessment
☐ Evaluation of [number] remedial alternatives
☐ Human health and ecological risk assessment

27. The RI/FS Report was finalized on [date] and is incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit [__].

D. Record of Decision (ROD) and Remedial Design

28. [If applicable] A Record of Decision ("ROD") was issued on [date] by [EPA / State agency], selecting the following remedial alternative:

[Describe remedy: excavation and off-site disposal, soil vapor extraction, groundwater pump-and-treat, in-situ oxidation, institutional controls, land use restrictions, etc.]

29. Remedial Design activities were conducted from [dates] to prepare detailed plans and specifications for implementing the selected remedy. These activities included [engineering reports / design drawings / construction specifications / wetland delineation].

E. Remedial Action (RA)

30. Remedial Action commenced in [month/year] and has included the following activities:

☐ Excavation and removal of [X cubic yards] of contaminated soil
☐ Treatment of [X cubic yards] of soil via [specify method: chemical oxidation, solidification/stabilization, etc.]
☐ Off-site transportation and disposal of [X tons] of contaminated soil and waste at licensed facilities
☐ Installation and operation of groundwater pump-and-treat system treating [X gallons/day]
☐ Soil vapor extraction system operation
☐ In-situ chemical oxidation
☐ Deed notice/Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) recordation
☐ Long-term monitoring

31. The Remedial Action is [ongoing / substantially complete as of [date]]. [Additional phases of remediation are planned/anticipated.]

F. Operation and Maintenance (O&M)

32. Long-term operation and maintenance activities are [ongoing / planned] to ensure the protectiveness of the selected remedy and to monitor the effectiveness of remedial actions. These activities include:

☐ Groundwater monitoring and sampling from [X] monitoring wells at [frequency]
☐ Pump-and-treat system operation and maintenance
☐ Treatment system operation and monitoring
☐ Institutional control compliance verification
☐ Five-year reviews

G. NCP Compliance

33. All response actions undertaken at the Site have been conducted in accordance with the National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300. The actions were planned, designed, and executed consistent with NCP requirements for:

☐ Removal actions (40 CFR § 300.410 et seq.)
☐ Remedial investigation and feasibility study (40 CFR § 300.430(d))
☐ Remedy selection and design (40 CFR § 300.430(e)-(f))
☐ Implementation of remedial action (40 CFR § 300.430(h)-(j))
☐ Documentation and cost recovery (40 CFR § 300.160)

34. Lead agency oversight and documentation throughout the response process support cost recovery under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) and 40 CFR § 300.160.

VII. RESPONSE COSTS INCURRED

A. Summary of Costs

35. In undertaking response actions at the Site, Plaintiff has incurred substantial costs for removal and remedial activities. The total response costs incurred are itemized in Exhibit [__] (Cost Summary), attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

36. The following categories of response costs have been incurred:

B. Direct Costs

37. Direct response costs include:

☐ Contractor Services: Professional contractors and vendors retained to perform site assessment, design, and remedial work. Total: $[________________]

• Site Investigation and PA/SI: $[________________]
• RI/FS services: $[________________]
• Remedial Design: $[________________]
• Excavation and soil removal: $[________________]
• Groundwater treatment: $[________________]
• Waste transportation and disposal: $[________________]

☐ Equipment and Supplies: Capital equipment, monitoring wells, treatment systems, sampling equipment. Total: $[________________]

☐ Waste Disposal: Transportation and disposal of contaminated soil, groundwater treatment residuals, and other waste at licensed/permitted facilities. Total: $[________________]

☐ Laboratory and Analytical Services: Environmental sampling, analysis, and quality assurance/quality control. Total: $[________________]

☐ Monitoring and Sampling: Groundwater and soil monitoring, long-term O&M sampling. Total: $[________________]

C. Indirect Costs

38. Indirect response costs include:

☐ Regulatory Oversight: Costs associated with agency oversight, document review, regulatory compliance, and coordination with environmental agencies. Total: $[________________]

☐ Legal and Administrative Services: Costs for legal review, administrative support, and claims management. Total: $[________________]

☐ Engineering and Technical Review: Third-party engineering review, technical oversight, and quality assurance. Total: $[________________]

☐ Mobilization and Demobilization: Site mobilization, equipment setup and removal. Total: $[________________]

D. Interest

39. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), Plaintiff is entitled to recover prejudgment interest on the amounts recoverable at the rate specified for interest on investments of the Hazardous Substance Superfund, compounded annually, accruing from the later of (i) the date payment of the specified amount is demanded in writing, or (ii) the date of each expenditure concerned.

40. The total interest accrued on response costs through [date] is $[________________].

E. Total Response Costs

41. Total Response Costs Incurred (Direct + Indirect): $[________________]

42. Total Response Costs with Interest: $[________________]

43. A detailed itemization of all response costs, with supporting documentation (invoices, payment records, cost certifications), is attached as Exhibit [__] and incorporated herein by reference.

VIII. COUNT I: COST RECOVERY UNDER CERCLA § 107(a)

Elements

44. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs by reference.

45. As established above, the Site is a "facility" as defined in CERCLA § 9601(9).

46. There has been a "release" and "threatened release" of "hazardous substances" from the Site as defined in CERCLA § 9601(8), (20), and (14).

47. Defendant is a Potentially Responsible Party ("PRP") under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) in one or more of the following capacities:
    - Current owner/operator of the Site (§ 9607(a)(1))
    - Prior owner/operator at time of disposal (§ 9607(a)(2))
    - Arranger for disposal or treatment (§ 9607(a)(3))
    - Transporter selecting disposal site (§ 9607(a)(4))

48. Plaintiff has incurred "response costs" within the meaning of CERCLA § 9601(25), including costs of removal and remedial actions.

49. Plaintiff's response costs were incurred consistent with the National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(B).

50. As a PRP, Defendant is strictly liable under CERCLA § 9607(a) for all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by Plaintiff, consistent with the NCP.

Defenses and Limitations

51. Defendant may assert the following defenses under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(b), which Plaintiff respectfully addresses:

☐ Act of God (§ 9607(b)(1)): Any claim that the release was caused solely by an act of God is rebutted by the evidence that the release resulted from Defendant's operations, disposal practices, and failure to exercise due care. [Describe facts refuting defense.]

☐ Act of War (§ 9607(b)(2)): Not applicable to this Site.

☐ Third Party Defense (§ 9607(b)(3)): Defendant cannot establish that the release was caused solely by a third party, because Defendant's own operations and practices contributed to the release. Moreover, if there is a contractual relationship, Defendant is not entitled to this defense.

52. Defendant is not entitled to the innocent landowner defense under 42 U.S.C. § 9601(35) because [Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the contamination / Defendant did not conduct all appropriate inquiries / Defendant acquired the property with actual knowledge of the release or threatened release].

53. Defendant is not entitled to the bona fide prospective purchaser protection under 42 U.S.C. § 9601(40) and § 9607(r)(1) because [specify reasons, e.g., Defendant impeded response actions / Defendant did not meet statutory criteria / Defendant's acquisition was prior to January 11, 2002].

54. Defendant is not entitled to the contiguous property owner exemption under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(q) because Defendant [owned / operated] the contaminated facility itself, not a merely adjacent property.

Relief

55. Under CERCLA § 9607(a), Defendant is strictly liable, and liability is joint and several. Defendant is liable for recovery of all response costs incurred by Plaintiff, without regard to comparative fault or Defendant's degree of involvement.

IX. COUNT II: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR FUTURE RESPONSE COSTS [42 U.S.C. § 9613(g)(2)]

Basis

56. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs by reference.

57. Pursuant to CERCLA § 9613(g)(2), Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendant is liable for future response costs that Plaintiff reasonably anticipates will be incurred in connection with the Site.

58. [Describe anticipated future response actions]: [Continued O&M / Additional RI/FS / Future remedial phases / Deed notice/AUL maintenance / Long-term monitoring].

59. These future response actions are consistent with the NCP and are necessary to address the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at the Site.

Relief

60. Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment that Defendant is liable under CERCLA § 9607(a) for all future response costs that Plaintiff reasonably incurs in undertaking the response actions described above.

X. COUNT III: CONTRIBUTION UNDER CERCLA § 113(f) [If Applicable]

61. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs by reference.

62. Plaintiff is a Potentially Responsible Party under CERCLA § 9607(a) by virtue of [specify Plaintiff's PRP category].

63. Plaintiff has been required to pay response costs and is therefore entitled to contribution from Defendant under CERCLA § 9613(f), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f).

64. Under CERCLA § 9613(f), the court shall allocate response costs among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court determines appropriate, including:
    - The degree to which a party contributed to the contamination at the Site
    - The amount of hazardous substances involved
    - The comparative fault of the parties
    - The degree of care exercised by the parties
    - Whether the party is a potentially responsible party

65. Based on these factors, Defendant should bear a substantial share of the response costs incurred at the Site.

Relief

66. Plaintiff requests a judgment for contribution from Defendant in an amount to be determined by the Court based on the application of CERCLA § 9613(f) equitable factors.

XI. STATE LAW CLAIMS

A. State Environmental Cost Recovery [if applicable]

67. [State] law provides for cost recovery from responsible parties for remediation of contaminated sites. Plaintiff asserts a claim for recovery of response costs under [State statute citation].

68. Defendant is a responsible party under [State law] and is liable for response costs incurred by Plaintiff consistent with [State cleanup standards / regulatory framework].

B. Common Law Nuisance

69. Defendant's operations and release of hazardous substances at the Site constitute a continuing public and/or private nuisance.

70. The presence of hazardous substances at the Site creates a substantial and unreasonable interference with Plaintiff's and the public's use and enjoyment of adjacent properties and the environment.

71. Defendant is liable for Plaintiff's reasonable costs to abate this nuisance.

C. Trespass

72. [If applicable] Defendant's release of hazardous substances has caused the migration of contaminants onto adjacent properties. This constitutes trespass under state law.

73. Defendant is liable for the costs of remediation and any damages caused by the trespass.

XII. ANTICIPATED DEFENSES AND REFUTATION

74. Plaintiff anticipates that Defendant may raise the following defenses and addresses them as follows:

A. Comparative Fault

75. Defense: Defendant may argue that other PRPs or parties contributed to the contamination and should bear proportional liability.

Response: CERCLA § 9607(a) imposes strict liability. Liability is joint and several, meaning each PRP is liable for all response costs regardless of comparative fault. Defendant's liability does not depend on the culpability of other parties.

B. Statute of Limitations

76. Defense: Defendant may argue that the cost recovery action is barred by a statute of limitations.

Response: CERCLA § 9613(g) provides a three-year limitations period for removal actions (measured from completion of the removal) and a six-year period for remedial actions (measured from initiation of physical on-site construction). [This action is timely under [applicable period]].

C. Causation / Causation Issues

77. Defense: Defendant may argue that it did not cause the release or that the release is not attributable to Defendant.

Response: Strict liability under § 9607(a) does not require proof of causation or fault. Liability attaches to current owners/operators and prior owners/operators regardless of whether they personally caused the release. [Defendant's operations contributed to the release.]

D. Plaintiff's Status as Responsible Party

78. Defense: Defendant may argue that Plaintiff is also a PRP and may not recover under § 9607(a).

Response: A PRP may recover response costs under § 9607(a)(4)(B) if it has incurred costs consistent with the NCP. Plaintiff's status as a PRP does not preclude cost recovery; alternatively, Plaintiff asserts contribution under § 9613(f).

XIII. DAMAGES

A. Response Costs Recovered Under § 9607(a)

79. Plaintiff is entitled to recover all response costs incurred in connection with the removal and remediation of hazardous substances at the Site, as detailed in Exhibit [__]. These costs total $[________________] as of [date].

B. Future Response Costs

80. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment regarding liability for future response costs under CERCLA § 9613(g)(2), including:
    - Continued operation and maintenance of remedial systems
    - Long-term groundwater monitoring
    - Potential additional remedial phases
    - [Other anticipated costs]

C. Prejudgment Interest

81. Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest on all recovery costs at the rate specified for the Hazardous Substance Superfund, accruing from the date of expenditure or the date payment is demanded, whichever is later.

D. Attorneys' Fees

82. [If Defendant is a municipality or small business that meets the de minimis standard, and other circumstances apply, Plaintiff may be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees under CERCLA. However, the availability of attorneys' fees is limited under Key Tronic Corp. v. United States, 511 U.S. 809 (1994). Include this section only if Plaintiff has a sound legal basis.]

XIV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against Defendant as follows:

In Count I (Cost Recovery Under § 9607(a)):

1. A judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant for all response costs incurred in connection with the Site, in the amount of $[________________], plus interest;

2. Prejudgment interest on the amounts recoverable, calculated from the date of expenditure at the rate specified for the Hazardous Substance Superfund;

In Count II (Declaratory Judgment):

3. A declaratory judgment that Defendant is liable under CERCLA § 9607(a) for all future response costs reasonably incurred by Plaintiff in connection with the Site;

In Count III (Contribution) [if applicable]:

4. A judgment allocating response costs among Defendant and other liable parties in an amount to be determined by the Court based on CERCLA § 9613(f) equitable factors;

In State Law Claims:

5. A judgment against Defendant for all costs of remediation and abatement of the nuisance and trespass under state law;

General Relief:

6. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, and equitable.

XV. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff [demands / waives] a jury trial for the claims in this Complaint. [Note: CERCLA cost recovery claims are equitable in nature and typically not subject to jury trial, though state law claims may support a jury demand.]

EXHIBITS

• Exhibit A: Site Map and Location
• Exhibit B: Soil and Groundwater Sampling Results
• Exhibit C: Environmental Assessment Reports (PA/SI)
• Exhibit D: Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Report
• Exhibit E: Record of Decision [if applicable]
• Exhibit F: Cost Summary and Itemization
• Exhibit G: Supporting Invoices and Payment Records
• Exhibit H: Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Search Documentation
• Exhibit I: [Other relevant documents]

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• CERCLA Statute: 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675
• § 9601(9) - Definition of "Facility"
• § 9601(14) - Definition of "Hazardous Substance"
• § 9601(20) - Definition of "Release"
• § 9601(25) - Definition of "Response"
• § 9607(a) - Liability of Potentially Responsible Parties
• § 9607(b) - Defenses

• § 9613 - Contribution and Civil Proceedings

• National Contingency Plan: 40 CFR Part 300

• § 300.160 - Documentation and Cost Recovery
• § 300.410 et seq. - Removal Actions

• § 300.430 - Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study

• Innocent Landowner and BFPP Protections: 42 U.S.C. § 9601(35), (40); § 9607(q), (r)

• All Appropriate Inquiries Rule: 40 CFR Part 312

• Key Cases:

• Key Tronic Corp. v. United States, 511 U.S. 809 (1994) - Attorneys' fees limitations
• United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128 (2007) - Successor liability
• Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U.S. 157 (2004) - Contribution triggers
• United States v. Cordova Chemical Co., 113 F.3d 572 (6th Cir. 1997) - Cost recovery from operators

• Interfaith Community Organization v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 399 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2003) - PRP status of successor corporations

• EPA Guidance:

• EPA Superfund Remediation and Removal Effectiveness Report
• Common Elements and Other Landowner Liability Guidance (2019)
• Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser and Contiguous Property Owner Guidance

[END OF TEMPLATE]