CERCLA); BCW Assocs. Ltd. v. Occidental Chem. Corp., No. CIV.A. 86-5947, 1988 WL 102641, at *17 (E.D.Pa. Sept.29,1988); Hatco Corp. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 849 F.Supp. 931, 963-64 WD.Pa.1991) (finding that expenses incurred for monitoring a waste site and developing a cleanup plan are recovery costs); Artesian, 659 F.Supp. at 1288 (adopting the reasoning of Wickland and allowing recovery of evaluation and monitoring costs). Accordingly, plaintiffs are entitled to recover as past response costs payments to Valley Forge Laboratories, Kaselaan & DeAngelo Associates, and Spires Engineering Company. With respect to Zaid’s claimed expenses of $26,250.00 for his time, they, too, are recoverable as labor costs. Cf.T & E Industries, Inc. v. Safety Light Corp., 680 F.Supp. 696, 707 (D.N.J.1988) (<HOLDING>). However, these expenses are currently
holding that bankruptcy court could not enter judgment for 7402564 under  107a for incurred costs when such costs had not been incurred holding that cercla permits recovery of labor costs incurred in responding to radiation containment holding that investigatory costs are considered costs of response under cercla holding that because plaintiffs failed to prove that their incurred fuel characterization and loading costs would not have been incurred in the nonbreach world plaintiffs were not entitled to recovery for these costs holding that cleanup costs incurred pursuant to a consent decree were not incurred voluntarily and must be sought through a  113f contribution action